COLINTRAIVE AND GLENDARUEL
COMMUNITY PLANNING STUDY
Authors
Dr Geoff Fagan, University of Strathclyde Sarah Menzies, University of Strathclyde Rhona Anderson, University of Strathclyde Innes Milne, University of Strathclyde Alvaro Bogajo, Universitat De Les Illes Balears, Mallorca
CADISPA Project, Faculty of Education University of Strathclyde 76 Southbrae Drive Glasgow G13 1PP Telephone: 0141-950- 3576 Website: www.CADISPA.org
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
BACKGROUND 5
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT 10
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 11
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 15
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF S TUDY 21
METHODOLOGY 22
SECTION 1 - CTATISTICAL A NALYSIS 24
SECTION 2 – OTHER ANALYSIS 64
THE DEVELOPMENT A GENDA 75
RECOMMENDATIONS 84
BIBLIOGRAPHY 88
APPENDIX 1 – OTHER STATISTICAL DATA 91
APPENDIX 2 - PUESTIONNAIRE 95
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The successful completion of this report has been due to contributions from a number of people including the following:
The Colintraive and Glendaruel Community Council Development Trust Steering Committee
The Colintraive and Glendaruel Community Council Development Trust Steering Committee’s help has been invaluable in the completion of this report and we would like to thank all the members of the group. In particular, we would like to thank Alex McNaughton who acted as an exceptional contact between the group and CADISPA.
Primary Schools
Permission was given for CADISPA to carry out H-evaluations (a series of questions presented to the children and responses gathered by sticking ‘post-its’ onto A1 sized paper) at Kilmodan Primary School, allowing pupils in every class to have their say on the future of the village.
We would like to thank Mrs Steedman, headteacher, for providing space at the school for our researchers to collate data as well as the staff and children at the school for their contribution to this study.
Local Businesses and Employers
We would like to thank all of the local business people who contributed to this study by agreeing to be interviewed by our researchers.
Images
Images, including front cover view, courtesy of Graham Clark - www.colintraivecorner.co.uk/gallery.asp?ID=4
Other images, courtesy of Bjorn Larsson collection www.timetableimages.com/maritime/index.htm
Map of Colintraive and Glendaruel area Glendaruel are courtesy of Ordnance survey, Crown Copyright, 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Colintraive and Glendaruel is a rural community set amongst some of the most magnificent scenery in Scotland. Local people, through this study, have identified a number of changes that they would like to see and a number of aspects of life that they do not wish to change. They are keen for any development to be led by local people, to ensure that development is owned by the community and not imposed by outsiders. People reported a sense of being left out of the development agenda, detailing gaps in services, poor infrastructure, the need for improved amenities, the need for marketing of the area and for the tourism experience to be enhanced, amongst many other issues.
In response to this, local people have formed a number of organisations to tackle these issues, and are keen to form a Development Trust that will represent the two villages, to move forward the priorities identified in this study. The Colintraive and Glendaruel Community Council Development Trust Steering Committee – CGCCDT (SC) - was formed in 2006 to commission this investigation.
CADISPA carried out this study within its remit of seeking to ‘help communities help themselves’ and within the context of sustainable development. In conjunction with the CGCCDT (SC), CADISPA defined the parameters and scope of the study. A questionnaire was designed in partnership with local people and was the principal investigation tool, supplemented by more qualitative research including focus groups, semi- structured interviews and H-evaluations. The main aim of the study was to document and analyse the current social and micro-economic climate of the area and to identify factors for development over the next ten years, as set out by local people.
The findings of the study will provide the basis for a development agenda that can be used to take the community forward over the next ten years, after establishing the priorities and concerns of local people. Through a combination of questionnaires, interviews and focus groups, CADISPA reached as many members of the community as was possible. The response rate to our survey was 38%, and this was further strengthened by interviewing businesses and focus groups with young people and the primary school.
The key priorities for future development were identified as the following:-
More social, educational and sports facilities/opportunities are needed within the community in order to improve both quality of life for residents, and to provide alternative venues for visitor activities.
The preservation and protection of the built (artefacts, buildings and other points of interest) and the natural environment. This is the reason many people come to the area and why local people take such pleasure from the area.
There is a dearth of activities for people locally, in particular, those in the 12-18 age group and the older population. Residents intimated a strong need for new activities to overcome issues of boredom and loneliness.
The need to stimulate economic development, job and wealth creation and service provision through enterprise and training – a business association with strong links to any new development trust was suggested.
There is a great need to market and promote the area further to encourage more visitors and to strengthen local people’s sense of heritage. This would create economic and social benefits to the villages.
The need to improve the tourist experience.
The need to improve the transport infrastructure.
The need to tackle the lack of affordable housing for the elderly, young families and local people. Also identified was the risk that the villages would become increasingly attractive to older, retired people or, those with second homes.
Regular consultation with the community was important to ensure that the Trust has a mandate to act, and negotiate with external agencies on behalf of the community.
Development needs to be driven by local people in partnership with outside organisations.
A need was identified for improved broadband provision, accessible for all, and for improved telephone connection.
The limited ambulance service was not acceptable to local people.
There is a need for the community to identify a strategic approach to staged development, and to work together to achieve development for the villages over a period of years.
There is a clear role and need for an organisation such as a Development Trust to lead these developments and to capture the skills and enthusiasm of local people in partnership with the Community Council.
BACKGROUND
The communities of Colintraive and Glendaruel are situated in the Argyll and Bute area. An ordinance survey map of the area indicates that Colintraive and Glendaruel lie in the heart of the Cowal peninsula. Glendaruel is a glacier valley, sparsely populated by farms and small clusters of houses. The Clachan of Glendaruel is to the south end of the glen and here you will find a few houses, Kilmodan primary school, Kilmodan church, and the Glendaruel hotel. The river Ruel runs the ten mile length of Glendaruel and feeds into Loch Riddon. Follow the east shore of Loch Riddon and you are into the Colintraive area which extends for ten miles past the East Kyles of Bute round Strone Point and up the west side of Loch Striven. The old Colintraive road follows the shores of Loch Riddon and is sparsely populated until you reach the village of Colintraive, also a mainland port for the ferry crossing to Rhubodach on the island of Bute. The village is a ribbon development extending for one and a half miles along the East Kyle. Here you will find the Colintraive hotel and shop, the village hall, the church and several residential and holiday homes. South of the village of Colintraive, the area is accessed by a single track road and is very sparsely populated for five miles.
T he A886 was built in the early 70’s through G lendaruel and this was extended to C olintraive in the 80’s. The west Glendaruel r oad and old Colintraive roads are single t rack and are the only access to some of the f arms and dwellings. Both are beautiful quiet r oads enjoyed by walkers and cyclists.
I n Glendaruel, the ordinance survey map i ndicates that the area had an ancient past w ith a cairn, a fort and a chapel. John B artholomew’s Gazetteer of the British Isles, r efers to ‘Antiquities area ruined fort on the i slet of Ellen-Dheirrig, a standing stone ten or t welve feet height at the head of Loch S triven, and sepulchral tumuli in several p laces’. (www.visionofbritain.org.uk)
Close to the Central Belt and main population centres, yet Highland in nature, Argyll has a diverse range of flora and fauna. According to Argyll online (www.argyllonline.co.uk) the Argyll area has the richest biodiversity in the UK. Its wide range of natural resources produces and supports an extensive variety ‘of land, freshwater, marine and coastal habitats and species.’ The area around Colintraive and Glendaruel includes animal species of red and roe deer, cattle, sheep, red squirrels and rabbits and various species of birds such as Sea Eagles, Golden Eagles, Lapwings, Corncrakes, Woodpeckers, Gold Finches and Chiff Chaffs. Mammals include seals and river otters, common and grey seals inhabit the waters of Argyll. In Bridget Paterson’s book entitled ‘Colintraive and Glendaruel’ she writes about an eight foot shark caught in nets in Loch Striven in 1915, then stolen from a taxidermist in Glasgow and found up a Glasgow close!
Situated close to Glendaruel at Cruach Mhor is a thirty-five turbined wind farm. Despite some local opposition, the majority of residents were in favour of the project and as a result, the community receives an income of £21,000 per year, index linked, towards community projects. Black grouse that had inhabited the area prior to the turbines have been encouraged to move further along the hilltop.
T he waterways of the West of Scotland were i mportant channels of communication in the p ast and this is a theme that is explored fully i n Bridget Paterson’s book. In the past, p eople used a variety of boats to travel long d istances as the land was often difficult to c ross since it was heavily forested with no r oads. From the first people of the Mesolithic t imes, through the Iron Age to the times of t he Vikings, the lochs and seas of the West c oast of Scotland were important c ommunication routes. The area is referred t o as being the ‘cradle’ of the Scots nation w ith the arrival of the Scotti from Ulster who c reated the Kingdom of Dalriada in Argyll f rom around 500A.D. The Celtic church was a lso active in Argyll working alongside the S cotti to create the Celtic church at Iona u nder St. Columba in 563A.D.
The Norse influence in Argyll was important. Devastating raids on settlements were carried out, however, a more settled community had evolved by the 12th century created by a ‘fusion of Norse and Gaelic culture’ and included its own powerbase as Lord of the Isles (extract from Argyll and Bute council website).
The clan system influenced the area immensely, with the Clan Campbell being a dominant power in Argyll. The controversial period referred to as the Clearances, led to a mass movement of people away from the land. This was particularly noticeable in the second half of the eighteenth century when sheep were introduced and replaced subsistence farmers of the time. Many people moved to the growing centres of Greenock, Paisley and Glasgow and from there a number of people made the journey across the Atlantic to America or Canada.
In 1887, John Bartholomew's Gazetteer of the British Isles described the parish of Inverchaolain, which included Colintraive and Glendaruel, as "Inverchaolain, Argyllshire, pop. 407. It contains the village of Colintraive, with a post office under Greenock and a steamboat pier……. and land area of 29,312 acres. The hilly and rugged surface includes some small flat fields adjacent to the shore, but generally rises with steep ascent all round the coast; formerly was, in main degree, covered with heath, but has been extensively reclaimed into a condition of good sheep pasture. Less than one-thirtieth of the entire area is arable, about one- thirteenth is low-lying pasture or under plantations, and all the rest of the land is either hill pasture or waste.”
In the twentieth century the introduction of new machinery on the farms led to a fall in demand for agricultural labourers. More recent problems such as BSE and foot and mouth also impacted on the farming community.
The census for Inverchaolain showed the following trends (www.visionof Britain.org.uk)
year Population; Males Females Occupied Unoccupied both residencies residencies 1831 699 318 381 n/a n/a 1851 1,065 560 505 208 0 1881 407 211 196 73 6 1901 334 170 164 75 13 1921 428 206 222 96 17 1931 318 176 142 79 22 1951 433 293 140 84 10
From this data, various issues emerge. In terms of population, this fluctuated through the twentieth century, hitting a low point in 1901 and 1931, recovering somewhat in 1951 and peaking in 1851. Apart from 1831, females have always been outnumbered by males, particularly 1951.
There are no precise census statistics on the two villages (information generated from the Research and Information officer, Lochgilphead offices, Argyll and Bute Council). However, statistics found on the Inverchaolain parish boundary show that the 2001 census indicates there were 242 people living in what was the former parish of Inverchaolain. Figures of 124 males and 118 females show a decline in population, but a balance of the male/female ratio. There was a total of 173 ‘household spaces’ of which 125 were occupied. Of the 48 others, 27 were ‘second residencies/holiday homes’ and 21 were ‘vacant household spaces.’ For the purpose of this research, we asked committee members to compile a database detailing who lived in the area, including second home owners and other basic demographic information.
Interestingly, as a Millennium project, the Colintraive and Glendaruel community council produced a book photographing everyone in the community and people were given the opportunity to write a few lines about themselves. This book was published in 2001 and will give future generations a record of the past.
T his tradition of travelling ‘doon the watter’ b rought people from Glasgow to the area in s teamers. Colintraive’s pier was built in 1850 a n d this generated new income to the area t hat helped to rebuild some of the grand h ouses such as Dunans and Ormidale House, a nd Caladg Castle that was built in 1868 for G eorge Robert Stevenson, nephew of the r ailway pioneer. New building in the early t wentieth century included the ‘white villas’ of C olintraive. These were intended for an a ffluent style of holiday maker and were sold f or £350 each (B. Paterson Colintraive and G lendaruel). Tourism also brought the era of t he motor car, and in 1908 a speed limit of t en miles an hour was introduced to the area.
T he pier was demolished in the 1950s and today the Waverley is the last remnant of that bygone time, although the Jeanie Deans a nd the Talisman were still sailing in the Kyles in the 1960s. All these events helped shape the general area and Colintraive to a g reater or lesser extent.
C olintraive is the ferry point on the mainland t hat connects the Isle of Bute to the rest of A rgyll and the ferry is vital to the village and s urrounding area in terms of employment a nd communication. Colintraive is derived f rom ‘Caol an t-saimh’ or ‘narrows of the s wimming’ and in years gone by, cattle would s wim the short journey. In 1950 the Bute f erry came into operation sparing the cattle t his journey. Caledonian MacBrayne now o perates this route.
The early twentieth century saw the development of forestry in the area. This controversial development in Scotland brought much needed employment, but critics argued that it blighted areas with unsympathetic planting of trees that were not native to Scotland. The 2005 figures from the Forestry Commission indicated that Scotland had 437,000 hectares of conifers compared to 91,000 hectares of broadleaf trees.
Today, employment in Colintraive and Glendaruel includes farming and tourism. The ferry company, Caledonian MacBrayne, is also a major employer of local people. The Colintraive and Glendaruel website (www.skwebpages.com/colglen) has a business directory that includes a soap company, two local hotels, a caravan park, a builder, fencing contractor, local travel company, publisher, holistic therapist and mobile fish and a fruit and vegetable van. The Colintraive hotel, formerly a hunting lodge for the Marquis of Bute, dates back to the 1850's and retains much of its original character. It has been sensitively restored by its current owners and is a successful business.
E asy access to the central belt encouraged w ealthy industrialists to build in the area a nd many coastal houses and villas were b uilt in the early twentieth century. The l ocal church was constructed in 1842, and a fter a history that reflected the religious c ontroversies of the time, it was reunited w ith the Church of Scotland in 1929. The v illage hall opened in 1960 costing £ 5,000. It took seven years to raise the f unds.
Behind the hall is the community garden that was completed in 2003 and beyond t his is the all weather bowling green. All three were community projects that indicate a determination by local people to i mprove their environment in a positive w ay. Another more recent example of this was in November 2006, when the
K i l m o d a n A c r e T r u s t w o n £ 5 0 , 0 0 0 o f l ottery cash in the ITV People’s Millions contest to create a fully accessible play park and picnic site in Glendaruel.
The A886 leads to the Clachan of Glendaruel where Kilmodan Primary School, dating back to 1974, is situated. The school has seen the roll diminish over the years and in 1998 was threatened with closure. In 1881, two public schools, Kilmodan and Stronafian, served the area with places between them for over one hundred children (although average daily attendance was noted as forty).
The Glendaruel Hotel, still known as the village inn, is situated here. Outside the immediate area, two miles north of the Clachan of Glendaruel, is a busy village hall. Built in 1903, it was originally used as a bothy to house for men working on the former Glendaruel House (which is now home to a caravan park) and has recently been refurbished by funds from the Millenium project.
There has been a long tradition of ‘Col-Glen’ shinty teams, and the present shinty field is close to the Clachan. The nearby Glendaruel Caravan Park is on the site of the Highland Hotel, formerly Glendaruel House. The Glendaruel estate was sold shortly after the end of the Second World War There is much historic evidence of former days in the Glendaruel area with a bridge designed by Thomas Telford, a former water-mill and a smithy. Kilmodan Church was built in 1783, and it is thought that there have been churches on the site since the tenth or twelfth century with the old Kirk yard having many ancient burial stones.
New Developments in Scottish Government
With the landmark victory for the SNP this May (2007), we can expect to see some changes in governance over the coming term. The cabinet has a new complexion with Alex Salmond as First Minister, Richard Lochhead, Minister for Rural Affairs; Michael Russell, Minister for the Environment; and Stewart Maxwell, Minister for Communities and Sport. A number of changes have been implemented, including:- o The Climate Change Bill which set out one of the most ambitious targets for CO2 reduction in the world – with an 80% reduction by 2050. o The end of private healthcare in the Scottish NHS. o Potentially the biggest house-building programme in Scotland for 30 years: increasing housing supply by 50% every year until 2016.
(Macwhirter, Iain (2007), ‘The SNP didn’t just hit the ground running, they lapped the political field,’ The Sunday Herald, 24/06/07)
It is rumoured that Communities Scotland - the Executive’s agency responsible for housing, regeneration and social enterprise - will be axed, amongst other quangos, to be replaced by revised versions of their predecessors (Carpenter, J (2007) Regeneration upheaval in SNP Scotland, Senscot, Regeneration & Renewal magazine, 25/05/07). In addition, central to the SNP’s manifesto was the pledge to rule out nuclear power and reform relations with Westminster. It would seem therefore that Scotland can expect to see a new political direction over the next few years.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
Sustainable development is a term that much has been written about in recent years. There has been an increasing interest in the issue. Projects and policies in Scotland and around the world now have sustainable development as a key component. Sustainable development underpins the work of CADISPA. This work has been ongoing in Scotland for the last twenty years, giving CADISPA a wealth of experience in this area and making it one of the pioneers of sustainable development. CADISPA aims to inform and support local people in order to proceed to a successful sustainable future. This section of the report will aim to explain:
• What sustainable development is in relation to local communities and CADISPA
• A background to sustainable development that looks at recent major developments in this area
• An overview of the recent developments in government polices
• Some of the socio-economic issues that communities such as Furnace are facing at the present time
Sustainable Development, Local Communities and CADISPA
The aim of the CADISPA Project is to help small rural communities develop their own solutions to the challenges posed by sustainable development and to meet locally identified community needs within the definition of sustainability. Development that is sustainable must address the following three key issues:
• Local Involvement: development options should be identified and approved by the local community and the organisational structure of that community must ensure that all members are kept informed and have the opportunity to contribute to the development debate.
• Environmental Sensitivity: consideration should be given at all stages of any development project to the environmental implications of the project. This might include using environmentally-friendly building materials, renewable energy sources, and disposing of waste in an environmentally sensitive way.
• Economic Sustainability: development projects must be able to ‘stand on their own feet’ once initial funding has been used. This might mean that projects need to incorporate an income stream, to allow the project to function successfully without continued external funding.
CADISPA aims to enable people living and working in rural communities to become as powerful and informed as their professional counterparts in the various regional and developmental authorities, and for them to be able to work together from a position of understanding and equality. People are central to the identification and prioritisation of their own local agenda, and they must be central to the process of sustainable development.
A Background to Sustainable Development
Sustainable development became topical in the late 1980’s following growing concern about the environmental and social consequences of unrestrained, free-market economic development throughout the world, especially in the poorer nations of the South. In 1987, the World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) published a report entitled ‘Our Common Future’, also known as the Brundtland Report, named after its author Gro Harlem Brundtland. The report concluded that current development policies and practices were using natural resources at an unsustainable rate, in a way that was harmful to the future of humans, the environment and the planet as a whole. Those at the WCED conference agreed with what has now become the most widely used working definition of the term sustainable development: -
"…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” 1
What was essentially needed, the Brundtland report argued, was a change in social, economic and political decision-making across the world. These included changes in attitudes towards a range of issues: resource consumption; poverty and exploitation; lifestyle changes; appropriate technology; and institutional changes; including democracy. It was acknowledged that in order to achieve these grand aims, people at all levels in society would have to be involved, from national Governments to local communities. Governments would have to become more proactive, and take equal account of social, environmental and economic needs in their development planning. Local people would have to become empowered to become fully involved in the development of their local area.
The Importance of Community Participation
In the past, participation of local people in decision-making processes of local government was limited. At times local and national Governments have not made it easy for local people to publicly voice their views and opinions, and often the willingness of local communities to become involved in such issues has been low. If sustainable development is to succeed then both government and local people must change their opinions of community participation. Involve is a new organization set up in the UK in 2003 to focus on the practical issues of making public participation work. Geoff Mulgan (2003), Chair of Involve argues that greater public involvement ‘can greatly help in addressing some of our
1 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press. most pressing problems and countering the risks of distrust and alienation.’ Participation works best when people feel they can make a difference and when they have the time to fully engage with the issues.
As an international leader in public participation, IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation) has developed a core values list for use in the development and implementation of public participation processes:
1. Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. 2. Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision. 3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognising and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers. 4. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by, or interested in, a decision. 5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate. 6. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way. 7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.
The input from local people and the general public is fundamental to successful sustainable development. If the goals of sustainable development are to be met, it is necessary to engage the views of local people when making decisions. Fundamental to this are the issues of community ownership and local control, to ensure continued inclusion of the community in the process of development and regeneration. Local people too must be wiling to engage in the politics of their neighbourhood.
What is a Sustainable Community? The Egan Review
The Egan Review was published in 2004 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Sir John Egan chaired the review and in his foreword to the report he explained that he was seeking to ‘deliver communities in which people want to live and work, and which are sustainable for future generations.’ The Egan Review’s definition of sustainable communities is that they ‘meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, their children and other users, contribute to a high quality of life and provide opportunity and choice. They achieve this in ways that make effective use of natural resources, enhance the environment, promote social cohesion and inclusion and strengthen economic prosperity.’
The Review described seven components of sustainable communities –
1. Social and cultural – vibrant, harmonious and inclusive. This would include such things as a sense of community identity and belonging and low levels of crime and anti-social behaviour.
2. Governance – effective and inclusive participation, representation and leadership.’ This refers to, amongst other things, governance systems that are visionary, representative and accountable that would include a sense of civic values, responsibility and pride.
3. Environmental – providing places for people to live in an environmentally-friendly way.’ Included in this third component would be efficient use of resources, minimising negative environmental impact and having due regard for the needs of future generations.
4. Housing and the Built Environment – A quality built and natural environment. This refers to, amongst other things, sufficient range, diversity and affordability of housing and well-maintained public and green spaces with facilities for everyone, including children and older people.
5. Transport and Connectivity – Good transport services and communication linking people to jobs, schools, health and other services. This included issues such as good telecommunications and internet access and safe local walking and cycling.
6. Economy – A flourishing and diverse local economy. This refers to, amongst other things, a wide range of jobs and varied training, as well as sufficient land and buildings to support economic prosperity and change.
7. Services – A full range of appropriate, accessible public, private, community and voluntary services. This included areas such as education, health care, and a range of public, community, voluntary and private services.
The remainder of the Egan Review discussed strategies for developing sustainable communities around the U.K both in urban and rural settings. Many existing communities fall short of the seven criteria, and the gap between the ideal and the reality may be extensive. The importance of John Egan’s Review was to get the concept of a sustainable community both discussed and reviewed. However, by not recognising that communities, very often, hold residual within them all the skills necessary to make them sustainable, he failed to tap into a substantial reserve. The CADISPA approach (www.cadispa.org) is different. It enables communities to harvest the skills and enthusiasm of local people from a bank of residual talent. CADISPA celebrates functionality not dysfunctionality in communities.
For CADISPA, sustainable development is achieved through social and economic regeneration within a framework of social, economic and environmental considerations. We also recognise that local people may need to learn new skills and become more empowered in order to make appropriate decisions for their own future and that of their community.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Recent Developments in Government Policy
Since the devolution of Scottish Parliament in 1999, there has been a much higher profile given to rural Scotland. The Scottish National party has pledged to continue this and to ‘declutter’ the landscape by merging a number of key organisations. Nine of the main organisations working in rural affairs and environmental issues, have been asked to devise a means of delivering a single rural an environmental service within the next year. These bodies include, SNH, SEPA, the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise, the Cairngorm National Park Authority, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, Deer Commission Scotland, the Crofters Commission, Scottish Executive Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (previously SEERAD) and the Animal Health agency. In addition, a number of other related organisations such as CoSLA, will be invited to participate in the work (the Scottish Government 2007). A new Scottish Rural Development plan will also come into force between 2007-2013, which will mean that rural communities can expect changes over the next few years.
Scottish Executive Support
The previous Executive supported rural communities in a number of ways and it is expected that many of these, viewed as good practice, will continue. o The Rural Community Gateway website (www.ruralgateway.org.uk) which aims to provide rural news, information and networking. o The Scottish Rural Partnership Fund provides financial assistance to rural communities to develop and improve local facilities and services, however at the time of writing, the Executive are in consultation about the future of this fund. o The Scottish Land Fund assists communities to acquire, develop and manage local land. This has been succeeded by the Big Lottery Fund programme - Growing Community Assets (www.biglotteryfund.org.uk) and is being delivered through Highlands and Islands Enterprise. o The Rural Development Small Awards Fund was introduced in 2005 and aims to support community groups looking for small amounts of funding for community projects. o The Crofting Development Schemes offer incentives to encourage new entrants and provide funding for agricultural improvements. o The Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme is set up to encourage the creation of new woodlands through compensation for the loss of farmland.
CoSLA
Colintraive and Glendaruel fall within the boundaries of Argyll and Bute Council (A&BC) and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE). The Council is responsible for a wide range of services. Relevant to this report are the services of education, waste management, maintenance of public roads, planning and building control, social work, housing, environmental health and emergency planning – www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
The Highlands and Islands Enterprise, specifically HIE Argyll and Islands, offer business support and community level support. Community groups and other non-for-profit organisations may be eligible for financial assistance – capacity building grants and advice and support (Highlands and Islands Enterprise, 2007).
Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs)
CPPs are one of the main vehicles connecting the community with Government and vice versa, in Scotland. CPPs involve the devolution of certain powers to community level, allowing local people to become involved in making decisions on issues that affect their lives, along with partners (those delivering services) and through the involvement of local Councillors. The aim of CPPs is to democratise service delivery and therefore make it more efficient and responsive to community needs.
There is no single model of CPPs as structures and approaches differ across the regions. Community involvement can also vary, existing through pre-existing conduits such as local community councils, community groups or directly. The involvement of elected members of the group also varies and in some regions they chair CPP meetings and in others they participate in meetings. These variations occur according to the community and depend on its size, geographical area etc. Key to this concept is that CPPs are not prescribed.
The future manifestation of CPPs cannot be determined, especially with a recent change in Government, but it is certain that the drive to, and the potential of, involving communities in the decision-making process will continue (Scottish Community Planning, 2007).
0ther Support Available to Communities
Within the realm of community development, there are a number of organisations set up to support community groups in building capacity. These include:
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) – an umbrella organisation that offers support to voluntary groups in Scotland with the aim of building voluntary sector capacity and strengthening governance – www.scvo.org.uk
The Council for Voluntary Services (CVS) – a similar organisation to SCVO, but working at local rather than national level as in the case of SCVO - www.cvsscotland.org.uk
There are also a myriad of similar organisations, many, like CADISPA, funded through Trusts and Foundations.
Social and Economic Issues
Affordable Housing
Communities Scotland was the previous administration’s main vehicle for funding housing in Scotland. This is currently being reviewed and it is expected that a new body will be formed to replace the organisation. It is uncertain what this will be replaced by. At present, Communities Scotland has an Argyll and Clyde based team and through this team (2007-2008) there is an investment budget of £80 million that will help to build six hundred and sixty-five new homes, either for rent or for low-cost home ownership in the area. This will mainly be through registered social landlords (RSLs) www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webp ages/iycs 006425.hcsp
RSLs are significant to housing, as a significant amount of the Council’s housing stock was transferred to their ownership. Although the Council remains the largest supplier of social housing (nationally), RSL stocks now represent forty per cent of the public sector housing (Shelter, 2007). In the Cowal Peninsula, Social housing is managed by Fyne Homes and Argyll Community Housing Association (ACHA).
RSLs operate as non-for-profit charities and are run by a voluntary committee. Both Fyne Homes and ACHA, work closely with the local Council to deliver the local housing strategy. At present there are no plans to build in Colintraive or Glendaruel, however, Fyne Homes and ACHA would welcome community involvement (both from individuals and residents part of a CPP), to effect change. The village of Furnace was used as an example, where a number of new flats were built (once suitable and available land had been identified) after local residents approached Fyne Homes. A number of different routes of ownership, including shared equity where residents can purchase their homes in partnership with Fyne Homes in order to create more affordable mortgages, may also be an option (information from Peter Macdonald, New Business Manager, Fyne Homes, September 07).
The previous Scottish Executive commissioned a review of rural Scotland and the findings were published in July 2004. The review included rural housing issues and recognised that rural areas in Scotland were diverse and had very localised needs. It was found that rural areas close to major settlements experienced a high demand for affordable housing, and in areas where there was a high level of in-migration and second home owners, many local people found it difficult to afford housing as a result of inflated prices.
Remote rural areas such as the islands often experience de-population through a mix of economic decline and limited housing options. The review called for a response to the imbalances, balancing supply and demand at regional and local level and the need to recognise and support a move towards owner-occupation.
CPPs are also an avenue that communities can explore to influence planning decisions in the locality.
The new SNP-led administration is exceeding previous pledges by planning the biggest house building programme in Scotland for thirty years – increasing housing supply by fifty per cent every year until 2016.
Land Reform
A significant development in Scotland in 2003 involved the Land Reform Act. This Act enables communities (Section 2), should they wish, to purchase local land and property and to be given the option of buying the land in advance of other interested parties, if, and when, it becomes available. Communities need to register an interest and if this is approved by Ministers, the land is entered on the Register of Community Interests – www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Rural/Land/17063/8276
For crofting communities, the right to buy land is similar, but the difference lies in the ability for a crofting community to exercise the right to buy at any time. The land does not need to be on the open market as with Section 2 of the Act. Crofting communities may also acquire sporting rights, mineral rights and salmon fishing rights, associated with the land. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Rural/Land/17063/8281
There are a number of communities that have chosen this route and Andy Wightman’s website details case studies www.landreformact.com.
Renewable Energy
Renewable energy is of increasing importance to many rural communities. Achieving a balance on the location of wind farms, number of turbines and whether power lines should be over or underground can be extremely sensitive. The SNP’s recent Climate Change Bill set out one of the most ambitious targets for CO2 reduction in the world – with an 80% reduction by 2050, in addition, at an SNP conference in October 2006, the Party argued for the number of wind farms built on-shore to be limited because of community opposition to the impact on scenery and wildlife, preferring a shift towards off-shore wind farms. www.snp.org
The Post Office
The post office provides an important, if not vital range of services for many rural communities. Research published by the Executive in July 2006 (‘Three Case Studies of the Role of the Post Office within Rural Communities in Scotland’), shows that the post office provided a financial role where there was no local bank and also an important social role. Examples include access to post offices for more vulnerable groups such as the elderly who draw their pension from the post office, disabled people and those with no transport. The post office was recognised as the ‘hub of the community’ allowing people to meet and postmasters and their staff play a wider role in the community beyond that of customer counter duties. Age Concern Scotland’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, (www.ageconcernscotland.org.uk) argued that local services, particularly Post Office services, were vital to maintain the “viability and sustainability of local communities.” Their evidence raised many points and intimated that although elderly people have free access to public transport, often there are insufficient reliable bus services in the area.
The research also indicated that postmasters feel increasingly under threat as services are being withdrawn and the public are being encouraged to use internet alternatives, e.g. with TV licences and Road Tax services.
The Rural Post Office Survey, carried out by Postwatch Scotland (the independent consumer watchdog for Scotland), found that 19% of people living in Scotland reside more than three miles from their local branch. However, according to Postwatch Scotland more than 1,000 ‘non- profitable’ offices in Scotland face closure when Government subsidies expire in 2008 (Scotsman).
In December 2006, the Government confirmed plans for the future of the post office which is expected to result in the phased closure of up to 3,000 post offices (www.bbc.co.uk). Most of these closures will be aimed at rural areas and many of them in Scotland.
In October 2007, the Post Office defended its move to close 44 branches in the first phase of closures in Scotland saying it had to move with the times and confirmed that Greater Glasgow would lose 23 offices, and others would go in central Scotland, west Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute in the first of a series of Scottish culls.
Recently released consultation documents said that use of Post Office branches was falling "as more customers utilise services at other places, make more use of the internet and have Government benefits paid directly into bank accounts". It added: "Post Office Ltd is acutely aware of the concerns that changes - including closures - affecting Post Office branches in Greater Glasgow, Central Scotland and Argyll and Bute will cause. "It is essential that the changes, which include a reduction in the number of branches, are made if the network is to have a sustainable future." It said the closure proposals were designed to ensure that no group of people in any area was more adversely affected than any other.
Postwatch expressed concern that the Colintraive and Taynuilt areas of Argyll would not meet the Government's new accessibility criterion that 95% of the population of each postcode district will be within six miles of their nearest branch. (Extract from Glasgow Herald, 24th October 07)
The debate continues over the need for local post offices as a public service, with campaigners continuing to lobby for rural post offices to be saved - a recent petition resulted in over four million signatures.
Health Care
Provision of health care in rural areas is an important issue. Despite record funds being spent by the NHS in Scotland and a reduction in patient waiting times, there is still concern over the provision of services. There is opposition to the policy of centralisation of services, as this may mean a downgrade in services for some hospitals. However, the Royal Colleges of Medicine, often seen as the driving force behind centralisation plans, argue that specialists need to practice their skills on higher numbers of patients to maintain their expertise. Centralisation could mean improved facilities and a higher standard of patient care (Glasgow Herald).
In October 2006, the Glasgow Herald obtained a draft paper commissioned by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which examined the impact of centralisation on remote communities. According to the research, mortality rates are higher amongst patients that are transferred to hospital for treatment from rural areas and living remotely from a hospital can create financial and stress burdens to the patient and their family.
The SNP strongly supports a localization of health care provision. Once again, future plans are uncertain, however, the SNP’s manifesto refers to rural health care as an issue:
“Local health services are particularly important to rural communities. We will support the model of rural, general hospitals and consider incentives to encourage people to train in rural medicine and commit to working in rural areas. We will ensure that training in specialist rural area medicine is properly supported”
What Trusts Can Do
There are also a large number of organisations operating for community benefit on a voluntary and community level. Within the charitable, voluntary and community sectors, groups can adopt a variety of legal structures including Incorporated Association, Un-incorporated Association, Company Limited by Guarantee, Industrial and Provident Society, Co-operative, Friendly Society and Trust.
A Trust is just one of many legal structures that can be adopted by a group and is set up to:
Aim for sustainable regeneration of a community (concerned with the social, environmental and economic needs of a community)
Be managed by local community representatives
To raise funds, where necessary, but also to generate an income through trading activities (any surpluses being reinvested in the community).
(DTA Scotland, 2007)
More and more community groups in Scotland are adopting this structure.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Aim
To create a sustainable community development plan on which future development can be built.
Objectives
1. To provide local people with the opportunity to identify issues of concern.
2. To allow local people a means of exploring and commenting on proposed projects in the area, and to identify what kind of development is acceptable to the residents of Colintraive and Glendaruel.
3. To allow local people to explore and comment on potential solutions to issues that face their community.
4. To draw the above together to develop an action plan for the next ten years.
5. To begin the process of identifying key people, organisations and skills in the community.
6. To progress the future development of the community according to the desires and needs of local people.
METHODOLOGY
The aim of this study was to allow members of the Colintraive and Glendaruel community an opportunity to express their views on what they would like to see changed and what they wish to conserve in their community, how any change could be implemented, how local people could control this and how it could be made sustainable.
The steering group comprised of a cross section of representatives from each of the active groups in the community.
All residents in the community were invited to participate, including those of school age. It was felt important to reach as many of the youth as possible as they will become the community of the future. Following discussions, it was agreed that second-home owners should be included in the study, as this group were also concerned with the future of the community, especially as a number of these people plan to retire to the village.
The main method of harnessing the information was distributing a questionnaire to every householder in the area and obtaining a random sample from the Glendaruel caravan park. The questionnaire contained a series of questions designed to cover all the aspects of a sustainable community, and also included ample space to enable people to comment on any other issues they may have. The questions asked were supplied by the Steering Group.
The questionnaire was supplemented by focus groups and interviews with businesses in the village. This process offered a number of alternative means by which the community could take part in the study. By using a variety of research tools, it allowed us to gather both quantitative (statistic based) and qualitative (people’s perception and opinions) data.
In all its local research activity, CADISPA strives to achieve a substantial response rate. One hundred and fifty eight questionnaires were returned, equating to 38% of the population of Colintraive and Glendaruel. This figure stood at 30% at the final return date of the study, but through hard work by the committee and CADISPA, an increase to 38% was achieved. We also conducted extensive qualitative research in addition to the questionnaire. The results in both areas of the study showed similar trends and patterns.
The data generated from the survey was entered into SPSS (quantitative data analysis computer program) and the qualitative information was analysed using standard research techniques. The findings from the combined analysis are presented as quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The data was then analysed across the CADISPA team to ensure inter-rater reliability. Any similarities and discrepancies were noted and addressed.
The research was bounded by the University’s ethical guidelines. All of the data was treated with confidentiality, handled sensitively and stored carefully and safely. The raw data will be kept at the University of Strathclyde for two years and then destroyed.
The fieldwork took place during spring 2007.
SECTION 1 - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Section 1 A Profile of the Respondents
It is useful to provide a profile of the respondents to a study as it allows the reader to assess whether a representative sample of local residents have responded to the survey. The tables below outline some basic demographic and personal data relating to the responds as a whole.
The database was composed by members of the steering group and indicated that there were 212 residents in Colintraive and 190 residents in Glendaruel (this number included holiday home owners). A small number of unopened questionnaires were returned (addressee had moved from the area or were deceased). A total of 400 questionnaires were sent out to the community -201 in the Colintraive area and 179 Glendaruel area and 20 questionnaires were sent to the Glendaruel Caravan Park.
The demographics of respondents indicated that there were approximately 98 males in Colintraive and 103 females. In Glendaruel, the statistics indicated that there were approximately 87 males and 92 females (according to the database minus returned questionnaires). Respondents from the caravan park were approximately 50% male/female ratio. Of the 400 questionnaires distributed, approximately 49% were sent to males and 51% to females.
According to local sources, there are 20 second homes in Glendaruel inhabited by 27 people (7% of the total distributed). In Colintraive, the number rises to 36 holiday homes with approximately 71 inhabitants (17.5%). These figures indicate that approximately one quarter (24.5%) of the questionnaires were distributed to second homeowners.
The age distribution of the community (information gained from local sources):-
Colintraive Glendaruel 16-25 4 (2%) 6 (3%) 26-35 13 (6%) 4 (2%) 36-45 14 (7%) 30 (16%) 46-55 28 (13%) 30 (16%) 56-65 49 (23%) 36 (19%) 66-75 40 (19%) 38 (20%) 76-85 19 (9%) 6 (3%) 85+ 8 (4%) 1 (0.5%) Unknown/ unassigned 38 (19%) 38 (20%) Total 213 (100%) 189 (100%)
NB The percentages have been rounded, therefore the sum does not necessarily equate to 100%.
The population for Colintraive peaks at the 56-65 age group and 66-75 age group for Glendaruel. Interestingly, there are also more people in the 36-45 age bracket in Glendaruel than Colintraive (excluding the unknown/unassigned ages). These charts show similar trends indicating a comparable movement in population spread and a greater number of older population (56+).
Comparison of Age of the Two Villages
60 50 40 Colintraive 30 Glendaruel 20 10 0 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85 85+ Age
It was difficult to ascertain exact statistics on a number of demographics as the census material available to us was not specific and we therefore relied on community members to help us compile the residents’ database. For example, we were unable to gather precise information on marital status of residents, employment status (although it is clear that there are a high number of retired people in the community), annual income etc.
A total of 158 questionnaires were returned completed, giving an overall response rate of 38%. a) Where Respondents Live
Colintraive Glendaruel Other Missing % 49.7 37.6 12.7 0
Where do you live? The data indicated that the 60 majority of the respondents 50 40 lived within the areas of 30 % Colintraive and Glendaruel. 20 More responses were received 10 from the Colintraive area and a 0 small number of respondents Colintraive Glendaruel Other reported living elsewhere. Residence
If we compare these figures to statistics from the database we can see that approximately 50% of the database was made up of Colintraive residents and 45% of Glendaruel residents.
50% of Colintraive residents and approximately 38% Glendaruel residents responded to the questionnaire which would indicate that the residents of Glendaruel are marginally under-represented in this study. b) Gender
Gender Male Female % 47.5 52.5
More females than males Gender 53 responded to the questionnaire, 52 which is fairly typical as women 51 50 tend to spend more time at
49 % home and perhaps they are 48 more community-minded then 47 men. There are marginally more 46 45 females than males living in the Male Gender Female area which indicates that men are slightly under-represented the study. c) Age
Age 16- 26- 36- 46- 56- 66- 76+ Missi Total 25yr 35yr 45yr 55yr 65yr 75yr ng s s s s s s % 1.3 7.6 16.6 11.5 35 20.4 7.6 - 100
Age Distribution From Community Database Age Distribution of Respondents 40 35 25 30 20 25 20 % 15 15 Percentage 10 10 5 5 0 16- 26- 36- 46- 56- 66- 76+ 0 25yrs 35yrs 45yrs 55yrs 65yrs 75yrs 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+ Age Range
(The first graph represents demographics from the study and the second graph represents demographics from the community database)
The data indicated that age distribution of the respondents is skewed towards the older population. If we compare this to the statistics produced by the steering group on age distribution, we can see that there is a slight over-representation of the 26-35 age group; a slight under-representation from the 36-45 and 46-55; and an over- representation of the 56-65 age cohort. The 76+ age group shows a balanced representation.
A similar demographic pattern to the above has occurred in a number of other surveys that we have undertaken. Many people in the 56+ age bracket now take early retirement indicating that this group has more free time. However, in an attempt to balance the trend, we ensured that the qualitative study included younger people and people in full-time employment. d) Martial Status
Martial Single With Married Divorced Widow/ Total Status Partner Widower % 10.2 10.2 68.2 1.9 9.5 99.4
Respondents Martial Status 80 The data indicated that the
70 majority of respondents were 60 married, with only a small 50 40 number of people single, with % 30 a partner, divorced or 20 widowed. 10 0 Single With Partner Married Divorced Widow/Widower Martial status
e) Resident Status
Resident Resident Second Regular Other Status Home Owner Holiday Maker/Visitor % 78.8 12.2 5.8 3.2
The majority of responses Respondents Resident Status 90 came from permanent 80 70 residents living in Colintraive 60 50 and Glendaruel and a small 40 % 30 number were completed by 20 10 second home owners. Twenty 0 questionnaires were Resident Second Home Regular Other Owner Holiday distributed to regular holiday Maker/Visitor makers and all of these were Resident Status returned completed.
The Colintraive and Glendaruel Community Council Development Trust Steering Committee chose to include regular visitors to the area as they felt that these people would also be concerned with any future developments of the community. f) Employment Status
Employed Employed Self- Status full-time part-time employed Unemployed Retired Student % 21.8 8.3 16 4.5 46.2 2.6
Respondents Employment Status Responses indicated that 50 there was a large population 40 of retired people living in 30 Colintraive and Glendaruel % 20 and a low student and unemployed population. The 10 remainder of the respondents 0 were employed, with a high Employed FullEmployed PartSelf-employed Unemployed Retired Student Time Time Employment Status
g) Annual Income
Under £10, Annual £10, 001- £12,001- £16,001- £22,001- Income 000 £12,000 £16,000 £22,000 £26,000 £26,001+ % 26.9 10.8 6.9 13.1 13.1 29.2
The data indicated that Annual Income of Respondents 35 around one third of residents 30 25 have a relatively high income 20 (over £26,001), despite a 15 % large number of retired 10 5 people living in the area. A 0 quarter of the respondents Under 10, 10, 001- 12,001- 16,001- 22,001- 26,001+ have incomes under £10,000 000 12,000 16,000 22,000 26,000 Annual Income suggesting that there is a substantial diversity of . income and spending power within the community. h) Working Outwith the Area
Outwith Yes No Missing % 21.5 20.3 58.2 This graph is representative Working Outwith The Area of those who responded to 52 this question - 41%. The low 51 return rate was probably due 50 to only the working % population responding to this 49 question (indicating that 48 those who did not respond 47 are either unemployed or Yes Response No retired).
Of those who are employed, just over 50% stated that they worked outwith the area indicating a need to commute, and the rest stating that they worked locally. i) Living in the Area
Yes with Yes breaks No % 14.2 7.1 78.7
The vast majority of Living In The Area 90 respondents stated that they 80 had not always lived in 70 Colintraive and Glendaruel. 60 50 14% percent of respondents 40 % stated that they had always 30 lived in the area, and less than 20 10 10% percent stated that they 0 had always lived in the area Yes Yes with Breaks No Response but with breaks. The data indicated that there is a substantial level of immigration to the Colintraive and Glendaruel area. j) Duration of Time Living in Colintraive and Glendaruel
Less Than 1-10 11-20 21-30 31+ Duration 1 year Years Years Years Years % 2.4 34.6 22 13.4 27.6
Duration of Living In The Village Responses indicated that there 40 were a small number of people 35 30 new to the area (less than 1
25 year). Around one third of 20 % people had lived in the area for 15 between 1-10 years and the 10 remainder had lived in the 5 0 area for 11 years plus. Less Than 1 year 1-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years 31+ Years Years
From the profile of responses (indicated above), it can be accurately established that the findings of this study reflect the views of residents that have lived in the area for a considerable length of time, that are familiar with all aspects of the community and able to make informed choices on what they would like to see changed. Section 2 Social Considerations
Respondents were asked to rate a number of statements according to how much they ‘agreed’ or ‘disagreed’. The statements were to assess how important residents felt social considerations to be and what part they should play in the future development of Colintraive and Glendaruel.
We felt it unnecessary to list all the responses to the questionnaire in this section of the report. Those of particular significance (i.e. high response rate, with discrepancies, unexpected responses etc.) have been presented in this section - the others can be found in the appendix of the document. We have also included some of the ‘finer’ details, as requested by the steering group. a) Improving social opportunities for the community should be a priority when considering any developments.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 38 54.7 6.7 0.7
Response Q2a 60 The majority of respondents 50 from Colintraive and 40 Glendaruel agreed or 30 % strongly agreed with the 20 statement that improving 10 social opportunities for the 0 community should be a Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly priority when considering any future developments.
On further analysis, there appears to be no difference between residents, second home-owners or regular visitors to the area, in response to this question. Around 90% of respondents in each group stated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. b) Respondents were presented with a list of services/activities which are presently limited, or not available within the Colintraive and Glendaruel area. Respondents were asked to rate how important it is for them to have access to the activities within their community.
i. Larger space for social events.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 13.9 33.1 41.1 11.9
50 Response Q2b-i There were mixed responses 40 to this statement. Fifty per 30 cent of the respondents felt % 20 that a larger space for social 10 events was very important or 0 important whilst the other Very Important Not Very Not fifty per cent felt that it was important important important not important. Response at all
On more detailed examination, it was felt that the variations could be due to the significant difference in responses from each area. Almost half of Colintraive residents agreed, or agreed strongly, that there was a need for a larger social space, whilst only 15% of Glendaruel felt there was a need for this facility. ii. Suitable space for tourist attractions on the heritage of the area.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 19.1 49.3 21.7 9.9
60 Response Q2b-ii Most respondents, almost 50 70%, felt that a new heritage 40 space, which could attract 30 % tourists to the area, would be 20 an important or very 10 important facility for the 0 community. Very Important Not very Not at all important Responseimportant important
In response to this question, there was no difference between residents, second home-owners or regular visitors to the area. The majority within each group agreed with the statement and over 60% in each group stated that they agreed or strongly agreed that there was a need for a suitable space for tourist attractions on the heritage of the area. iii. Educational opportunities.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 37.2 44.6 12.2 6.1
50 Response Q2b-iii The majority of respondents 40 (80%) felt that it was important 30 % to have enhanced educational 20 opportunities within the local 10 area. 0 Very Important Not very Not important important important Response at all Further examination of the statistics shows that there were no differences in response between the residents of Colintraive and Glendaruel to this statement. The majority of residents, 80%, in both communities, stated that they agreed or strongly agreed. xii. Sports.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 37.3 43.3 12.0 7.3
Response Q2b-xii 50 Over 80% of respondents 40 considered sports facilities 30 % 20 important or very important. 10 Residents indicated that they 0 would welcome additional or Very Important Not very Not new sports facilities in the important important important at Response all area.
In response to this question, Glendaruel residents considered sports facilities slightly higher in importance compared to Colintraive residents. 84% of respondents from Glendaruel considered sports facilities as very important or important compared to 78% of Colintraive residents. xiii. Activities for younger people.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 50.3 35.1 9.3 5.3
Response Q2b-xiii An overwhelming amount of 60 50 respondents (85%) felt that 40 more access to activities for 30 % young people are important or 20 10 very important. It was generally 0 considered that the current Very Important Not very Not provision of facilities for young important important important Response at all people in the area is inadequate.
A response of 85% was replicated by the residents in both communities as well as regular holiday makers. Second home owners considered activities for younger people more important than the other groups, with over 95% stating that activities for younger people were very important or important.
xiv. Activities for older people.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 34.4 50.3 11.9 3.3
Response Q2b-xiv Similarly, a majority of 85% 60 50 considered access to activities
40 for older people important, or 30 % very important suggesting that 20 10 this should be a priority issue in
0 future development plans. Very Important Not very Not important important important Response at all
Further analysis of both villages, indicates that there were similar responses to this question. 87% of Colintraive residents stated that activities for older people were important or very important, with greater emphasis on important. Residents in Glendaruel, however, considered activities for older people as less important with 80% stating that they were important or very important, with the majority considering activities important. xv. Support for those with special needs.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 40.8 41.4 12.5 5.3
Response Q2b-xv Again, the majority of 50 respondents (over 80%), felt 40 that support for those with 30 % 20 special needs is important, or very important to the local 10 0 community. Only a minority Very Important Not very Not of the community disagree important important important Response at all with this statement.
There was no difference in response to this statement between the two communities, each considered special need support as important or very important. xvi. Family activities.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 33.6 43.6 14.1 8.7
Response Q2b-xvi 50 The majority of the community 40 (80%) felt that access to 30 % 20 family activities within the area 10 is important, or very important 0 in any future development Very Important Not very Not important important important plans. Response at all
Again, a response of 80% was duplicated by residents in both communities, second home owners and also regular visitors or holiday makers. xvii. Primary health care services/doctor/nurse/dental etc.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 68.0 21.6 5.2 5.2
Response Q2b-xvii An overwhelming amount of 80 70 respondents, (over 90%) felt 60 50 that better access to primary 40 % 30 health care services is important 20 10 or very important to the area. 0 This would suggest that the Very Important Not very Not important important important at community is currently Response all dissatisfied with the quality of service currently provided.
There was however a small difference in responses between the two communities to this question. 87% of Glendaruel residents stated that primary health care services were important or very important, whilst residents in Colintraive, considered primary health care services as less important with 80% stating that they were important or very important. xviii. Other.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 66.3 26.5 6.1 1.0
Response Q2b-xviii When responding to the 70 60 statement ‘other’, most people 50 identified services/facilities 40 % 30 that they felt were very 20 10 important or important to the 0 Very Important Not very Not future of the community. important important important Response at all
The most frequently mentioned suggestions made by respondents regarding ‘other ‘activities or services were:
Activity/Service Government assistance with ferry fares – subsidies Functional ambulance service More affordable housing Shop/post office Arts and crafts facilities Indoor sports Bridge club at Colintraive
2c. The village hall in Colintraive/Glendaruel will be adequate for our needs over the next ten years.
i. Colintraive
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 12.2 44.7 29.3 13.8
Response Q2c-i 50 40 30 % 20 10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly ii. Glendaruel
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 18.0 48.6 23.4 9.9
Response Q2c-ii
60 50 40 30 % 20 10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly Response
The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the village halls in both communities would be adequate for the communities needs for the next ten years. The number of people who did not agree with this statement in the Colintraive area was fairly high (43%) and 33% in Glendaruel.
A small number of respondents highlighted their wish for a new hall in Glendaruel, closer to the village centre. d) Relating to the community:-
i. Do you consider there to be a good sense of community?
Yes No % 89.1 10.9
Response Q2d-i The majority of respondents in 100 both areas (89.1%), considered 80 there to be a good sense of 60 % community. 40 20 0 Yes Response No
The analysis suggested that organised events in each area are well supported by the community and that there is a strong sense of neighbourliness, particularly with support for the elderly. There were some concerns however, over second home owners’ contribution to the community and homes that lie vacant for most of the year.
ii. Do you feel safe in the community?
Yes No Characteristic of small rural 98.7 1.3 areas, the majority of residents (98%) stated that they felt safe Response Q2d-iii 120 in their community. Comments 100 included feeling very safe 80 walking around the area both 60 % during the day and at night, 40 20 and they felt safe in their 0 homes. Yes No Response
e) Residents were asked to state specific social concerns that they would like to see tackled by any future local development plan.
‘Other’ comments to emerge from the analysis included:
Development of affordable local housing for young people and provision of sheltered accommodation for the elderly.
Improved health care access to both GP and ambulance service.
Improved public transport to Dunoon and Rothesay.
Improved maintenance of local roads.
Please refer to appendix for additional results.
Section 3 Economic Considerations
Residents were asked to assess how important they felt economic factors were and what role they thought they should play in the future development of Colintraive and Glendaruel. a) Economic benefits to the community should be a priority when considering any development.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 37.6 51.7 8.7 2.0
Response Q3a 60 Over 80% of respondents 50 considered that economic benefits 40 to the community should be a 30 % priority when considering any 20 development and this factor 10 0 should be paramount to decision Agree Agree Disagree Disagree making. Strongly Response Strongly b) Economic improvement depends on creating more skilled and well-paid jobs in Colintraive and Glendaruel.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 31.1 54.3 11.9 2.6
Response Q3b Over 85% of respondents 60 agreed strongly or agreed that 50 40 economic improvement 30 % depends on creating more 20 skilled and well-paid jobs 10 within the area. 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly
Further analysis shows that there was no difference in response between the two communities in response to this question. A very similar pattern emerged from the responses for both groups with around 85% of respondents stating agree or strongly agree to the above statement. c) Local businesses do well financially in Colintraive and Glendaruel.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 5.3 49.2 43.2 2.3
This statement received very Response Q3c 60 mixed responses from the 50 community. Just over 50% 40 agreed that businesses do 30 % well financially in the local 20 area, while just under 50% 10 disagreed. This would 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree suggest that local people are Strongly Response Strongly unclear as to the economic situation of local businesses.
There was a difference in response to this statement between the two communities. The Colintraive respondents were inclined to agree with this statement, 67% stated they agreed or strongly agreed, compared to 45% of respondents in Glendaruel. The majority of Glendaruel respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement (55%) that local businesses do well financially within the area. There appears to be a different perception of local business success between the two communities - or the benchmark level of what ‘well financially’ means. d) Local businesses are supported in the area by:
i. Locals
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 11.2 71.3 16.8 0.7
Response Q3d-i 80 The great majority of 70 60 respondents considered that 50 local people support local 40 % 30 businesses by buying local 20 goods, and using local 10 0 trades. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly
Again, there was a difference in response between the two communities with the Colintraive respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that local businesses were supported by the community (90%) whilst only (75%) of Glendaruel respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.
ii. Visitors
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 12.3 66.4 18.5 2.7
Response Q3d-ii 70 The great majority of 60 respondents felt that visitors to 50 40 the area support local % 30 businesses during their visits. 20 10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly
Further analysis shows that there was no difference in response to this statement between the residents of the two communities, second home owners, regular visitors or holiday makers. The vast majority of respondents considered that visitors to the area support local businesses.
iii. The local authority i.e. financially and structurally.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 5.8 26.3 59.9 8.0
Response Q3d-iii 70 Over 65% of respondents 60 disagreed with the statement 50 40 that the local authority 30 % supported local businesses 20 financially and/or structurally. 10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly
e) The local economy would be strengthened by widening the range of skills and businesses in the area.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 28.6 62.3 7.8 1.3
Over 90% of respondents agreed that widening the range of skills and businesses in the area would strengthen the local economy. It was suggested that the present skills could be broadened to include more people within the community.
Response Q3e 70 60 50 40 % 30 20 10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly
f) Encouraging tourism in Colintraive and Glendaruel is essential for economic improvement.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 36.4 42.4 17.2 4.0
Response Q3f 50 Over 75% of people agreed 40 that encouraging tourism in 30 Colintraive and Glendaruel was % 20 essential to the future 10 economic improvement of the 0 area. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly g) There is a need for improved broadband provision in the community.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 58.6 36.2 3.3 2.0
Over 95% of respondents Response Q3g agreed that there was a great 70 60 need for an improved internet 50 service. The majority of the 40 % community felt that the 30 20 current standard and 10 availability of broadband was 0 not sufficient for the needs of Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly the community.
h) New technology, such as broadband internet access, has an important part to play in encouraging economic improvement in Colintraive and Glendaruel.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 0.7 58.2 34.6 6.5 Response Q3h The majority of 70 60 respondents agreed with 50 the statement that new 40 30 % technology has an 20 important part to play in 10 encouraging economic 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree growth in the area. Strongly Response Strongly
i) Specific economic concerns raised that should be tackled by any future local development plan.
Other concerns that local people considered should be tackled by future development plans were:-
The lack of affordable housing in the area.
Increase tourism potential - for the community to capitalise on visitors to the area.
To increase IT facilities and to make it more accessible locally.
More local employment opportunities.
Section 4 The Environment
Residents were asked a series of questions to explore how they felt about the natural environment of Colintraive and Glendaruel. They were asked how they would like to see the local environment protected and managed in the future, and to consider not only flora and fauna but air and water quality, recycling, transport and other issues. a) The conservation of the environment should be a priority in considering all future development proposals.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 65.2 32.9 1.9 0
Over 98% of respondents agreed that conservation of the environment should be a priority when considering future developments in the area. Conservation and preservation of the environment was considered by the majority of the community to be a very Response Q4a 70 60 50 40 % 30 20 10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly
b) Environmental threats to the area are a concern for me.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 51.9 38.3 9.7 0
60 Response Q4b Over 90% of respondents 50 agreed or strongly agreed 40 that environmental threats 30 % are of concern to them. 20 10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly
c) The protection of the environment is essential to encourage visitors and tourists to the area.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 61.7 31.2 6.5 0.6
70 Response Q4c Over 90% of respondents 60 agreed that protection of the 50 environment is essential to 40 % encouraging tourism to the 30 20 area. 10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Response Strongly
d) Any development in the community must meet the needs of current and future generations with minimal, negative environmental impact.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 67.9 29.5 2.6 0 Response Q4d 80 Nearly 100% of respondents agreed that any development 60 of the community must meet 40 % the needs of current and 20 future generations with
0 minimal environmental Agree Agree Disagree Disagree impact. Strongly Response Strongly
This result once again highlights the importance of the environment to the people of Colintraive and Glendaruel. e) Specific local environmental concerns that residents would like to see tackled by any future local development plan.
Other environmental concerns regarding the local area, as set out by respondents, included:-
A renewable energy supply for the area Preservation of the forestry, beaches, lochs Littering and rubbish collection
Section 5 Tourism and Cultural Heritage a) Colintraive and Glendaruel’s cultural heritage should be a priority when considering future developments.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 45.2 47.7 7.1 -
Responses Q5a The majority of respondents agreed that Colintraive and 60 Glendaruel’s cultural heritage 50 should be a priority when 40 considering future developments.
% 30 20 Most respondents felt very 10 strongly about this issue and only 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 7% disagreed. Strongly Strongly
The statistics show that 91% of Colintraive residents, and 94% of Glendaruel residents, felt strongly or very strongly about this, demonstrating that cultural heritage is a priority for both communities. b) The cultural heritage of Colintraive and Glendaruel is an economic asset to the area.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 37.7 49.4 13.0 -
Responses Q5b Similarly, the majority of respondents agreed with the 60 statement that the cultural 50 heritage of Colintraive and 40 % 30 Glendaruel is an economic asset 20 to the area.
10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly
On further analysis of each community, 83% of residents from Colintraive agreed or strongly agreed to this response and over 91% of Glendaruel agreed or strongly agreed. Such a high agree/strongly agree response from the Glendaruel residents may be attributed to the village having more established heritage artefacts.
c) The quality of the tourist experience in the area is good.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 14.9 59.5 23.6 2.0
Responses Q5c The majority of 70 respondents reported a 60 good quality of tourist 50 40 experience in the area. 30 However, 15% agreed 20 10 strongly and 26% disagreed 0 with this statement. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly
80% of visitors and holiday home owners considered the tourist experience in the area good whilst almost 70% of residents responded in a positive way to their perceptions of the quality of tourist experience. d) Presently, there is limited provision for moorings and pontoons. Would you support these facilities being upgraded to a higher standard?
Yes No Not Sure % 56.9 19.6 23.5
Responses 5d 57% of the respondents said they would support the 60 50 facilities being upgraded. 40 However, a number of
% 30 respondents did not support 20 upgrading and many others 10 0 were not sure. Yes No Not Sure
Unsurprisingly, there was a greater response from Colintraive residents (60% agreeing) than Glendaruel residents (48% agreeing). Visitors to the area were in support of facilities being upgraded (63%). e) The respondents were asked to comment further on the above question.
Most of the respondents who reported being unsure about future development explained that they had a lack of, or limited knowledge of, moorings and pontoons.
The respondents who were not in support of future development were mainly concerned that the area may become over developed, with a consequential rise in traffic and disturbance.
Many respondents were concerned about water pollution and the threat future development posed to the scenic beauty of the area.
Other respondents stated that funds could be better spent on projects that would benefit the whole community, as they felt that this development was only of benefit to a particular section of the community. f) What additional activities, if any, would you like to see at the Colintraive shoreline?
The following table outlines the priorities of respondents to this question (1 being the most important). Sailing activities were the most popular, with facilities for bird-watching and providing better car parking facilities for visitors and tourists the next important.
Developments in order Activity of priority Sailing 1 Bird Watching 2 Car Parking 3 Picnics 4 Pleasure Boating 5 Water Sports 6 Swimming 7 Other 8
The following activities were suggested for ‘other’:
Activity Short walks Beach clean up projects Causeway to Bute Camping/caravan facilities Tourist Office Off-road cycling Barbeque areas Upgraded public toilet facilities
N.B. These were minority responses, i.e. most people completed the first section of this question, with only a few commenting in this section.
g) The preservation of historical sites of interest in the area is important.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 47.1 50.3 2.5 -
Responses Q5g The 57%ma ofjo rrietsyponde ofnt s rseursep. o ndents
60 agree d that the preservation of 50 historical sites of interest in the 40 area is important. Only 2.5% of 30 respondents disagreed with this 20 statement. 10
0 Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly
h) There is a need for more interpretation boards and signage.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 21.9 45.7 27.2 5.3
Responses Q5h The majority of respondents 50 45 agreed that there is a need for 40 35 additional interpretation boards 30 and signage. 25 20 15 10 5 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly
There was a significant difference between Colintraive residents who felt more signage was necessary (69%) and the residents of Glendaruel who considered this less important (55%). Visitors to the area felt more strongly about signage with 73% agreeing or strongly agreeing that there was a need for additional boards. There were however a number of respondents who disagreed with this statement - (44%) of Glendaruel residents. i) Walking in the area should be encouraged with additional signs etc.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 33.8 51.9 13.0 1.3 Responses Q5i
Most respondents felt that 60 walking in the area should be 50 encouraged with the erection of 40
% 30 additional signage. Only a small 20 minority either disagreed or 10 disagreed strongly. 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly
j) Comments on tourism and specific developments for any future plan.
Many respondents were extremely keen on encouraging tourism in the area. Comments were made about the rich heritage, particularly of the Glendaruel area, and the natural beauty of the area.
‘Sharing the past culture of the area is very important not only for tourism but also for the pride and passion of the local people.’
Tourist developments that were suggested included a heritage centre and additional footpaths. Respondents were also keen for information to be made more accessible to tourists, and numerous people commented that the overgrown hedges hide wonderful views of the countryside.
‘One feature of the present situation which causes great concern is the overgrown nature of the roadside.’
Respondents were keen to develop tourism that is sustainable and has minimal impact on the environment.
‘It is important to attract people to the area but not at the expense of the environment or the local community.’
Section 6 Housing a) An adequate supply of affordable housing is essential to meet the needs of local people.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 52.6 38.8 6.6 2.0
Responses Q6a The vast majority of respondents agreed that an 60 adequate supply of affordable 50 housing is essential for the 40 needs of local people, with 53% 30 agreeing strongly. Only 2% of 20 10 respondents strongly disagreed 0 to this statement. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly
b) There is already sufficient affordable housing available to those living in:
(i) Colintraive
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 2.4 15.3 43.5 38.7
Responses Q6bi
50
40
30
20
10
0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly
(ii) Glendaruel
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 2.0 19 43 36
Responses Q6bii
50
40
30
20
10
0 Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly
When asked about the availability of affordable housing in each area, a similar pattern of responses emerged across both Colintraive and Glendaruel. The majority of people disagreed with the statement that sufficient affordable housing was available in the area. However, further analysis revealed a significant difference in the way residents and non-residents responded. Analysis of Colintraive responses revealed that non-residents agreed more with the statement that sufficient affordable housing is available in Colintraive, than residents. More retired people also agreed with this statement compared to those who were not retired. c) The current provision for housing for older people is sufficient.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 3.0 22.4 47.0 27.6
Responses Q6c The majority of people disagreed that this statement, with almost 50 half of the respondents 40 disagreeing, and over a quarter 30 strongly disagreeing. In 20 Colintraive 70% of people felt this 10 was not the case, whilst over 80% 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree felt this to be untrue. It would Strongly Strongly seem that local people in Glendaruel perceive a stronger need for housing for older people.
d) There are sufficient serviced plots available in the village for those wishing to build their own homes.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 4.7 15.0 53.5 26.8
Responses Q6c Respondents did not feel that there are sufficient serviced 60 plots available in the village for 50 those wishing to build their own 40 30 homes. 54% of respondents 20 disagreed with this statement 10 and 27% strongly disagreed. 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly
A significant difference was found between respondents who were retired and those not retired - retired people agreed more with the statement than those who were not retired. e) The respondents were asked to outline the particular elements of housing that were important to them.
Comments in this section mainly focused on affordable housing and sheltered accommodation for the elderly. There was a strong desire for more affordable housing, with specific requests that priority should be given to families with young children. Many respondents expressed sadness at the number of houses in the area being used as holiday homes and wished to restrict the number of houses sold for this purpose.
‘Affordable housing should be a priority.’
‘Too many houses belong to absent owners who use them as holiday homes. Houses are sold to outsiders at prices local people cannot afford. Some form of taxation must be deemed to prevent this happening. Houses should only be sold for permanent occupation.’
However, there were also many objections to the idea of building new houses.
‘I wouldn't like to see any further development planned. There is a need for three or four low cost houses in Colintraive - but if it means having to have another twenty-five houses in Colintraive, we're better off without any.’
A great deal of concern about accommodation for the elderly emerged with a great many people supporting the idea of sheltered housing complexes. Additionally, respondents indicated a need for small houses to enable older people to downsize.
‘I think a small sheltered housing complex would enable the elderly to stay within their community with people they know.’
‘Smaller housing for older people who want to sell their large and unsuitable house.’
General comments about future development stated that upgrading or rebuilding existing properties should take priority over new developments. Also, respondents expressed a desire for new developments to be designed in keeping with local character.
Section 7 Transport a) Do you have access to a car?
Yes No % 98.1 1.9
Responses 7a 98% of respondents reported
120 access to a car.
100
80 60 40 20
0 Yes No
b) How many cars are there in your household?
0 1 2 3 4 % 2.6 42.4 49.7 4.0 1.3
Responses 7b Most respondents reported having
60 either one (42%) or two (50%) cars in their household 50
40
30
20
10
0 0 1 2 3 4 No of cars
c) Do you use public transport to travel locally?
Frequently Occasionally Never % 6.5 31.8 61.7
The majority of respondents Responses 7c (62%) reported that they did
80 not use public transport to
travel locally. Only 7% 60 reported using public
% 40 transport to travel locally.
20 0 Frequently Occasionally Never
Significantly different responses were identified between the residents of Glendaruel and those of Colintraive, and also between retired and non-retired people. The residents of Colintraive reported using public transport more frequently than the residents of Glendaruel. Retired people also reported used public transport more frequently than non- retired respondents.
6d) Current provision of public transport in Colintraive and Glendaruel restricts my ability to work.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 14 27 40 19
Responses Q7d There was a mixed response to this statement. The majority of 50 people disagreed, reporting that 40 public transport in the area does 30
% not restrict their ability to work. 20 10 However, 14% of respondents 0 strongly agreed and 27% agreed Agree Agree Disagree Disagree that public transport in the area Strongly Strongly does restrict their ability to work.
36% of the respondents chose not to answer this question. This could be due to the fact that they do not feel this question applied to them as they do not work or that they used their own transport, bearing in mind there were a high proportion of retired respondents to this questionnaire.
There was a difference in response between the two villages. In Colintraive 65% of respondents disagreed with the statement whereas in Glendaruel there was more of a 50-50 split, with 46% stating that present public transport did restrict their ability to work. e) Current provision of public transport in Colintraive and Glendaruel restricts my social life.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 19.8 29.4 39.7 11.1
Responses Q7e Again, there was a mixed response to this statement, 50 with similar numbers of 40 respondents agreeing and 30 disagreeing about whether or % 20 not public transport provision 10 restricts their social life. 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly
20% of respondents chose not to answer this question. Of those that did respond, there was almost a 50-50 split in the number of people, from both villages, that agreed and disagreed. f) Which aspect of public transport, if any, do you find restrictive?
Aspect % Inconvenient Timetable 66 Route 33.3 Price 18 Other 16.7
66% of respondents Responses 7f reported that inconvenient timetables are a restrictive 80 factor of public transport. A 60 third of people felt that the
% 40 routes were restrictive and 20 18% reported that cost 0 was a restrictive factor. Price Inconvenient Route Other
Timetable
Other reasons reported included distances between bus stops, the standard of buses and timetables that were difficult to understand. g) Which particular elements of transport are important to you?
Respondents offered a wide range of comments and suggestions:
Many people felt that ferry prices were expensive and discounts should be offered to local people. Other comments included, the expense of the ferry may be a restrictive factor to people who would consider living in the village.
‘Discounted travel for locals on the ferry would be a great help.’
‘My main concern is with the price of ferry tickets. This really restricts people who might come to live in the area.’
Many comments focused on the inadequacy of the bus service, arguing that the service needs to be extended across the wider community, that the timetable needs to be simpler and more reliable and that an evening service should be provided.
‘I find it impossible to plan a trip without worrying I may have misunderstood the local bus timetable - consequently I use it far less than I could.’
‘Bus routes have to be extended to cover the whole community.’
The subsequent dependence of local people on their cars was made clear.
‘If I did not have a car I couldn’t live here.’
Section 8 Governance a) There is ample opportunity for me to take part in local community groups.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 13.7 76.0 6.2 4.1
Responses Q8a The majority of respondents agreed that there was ample 80 opportunity to take part in 60 local community groups. However, there was a % 40 20 significant difference between the responses from Glendaruel 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree residents and the responses Strongly Strongly from Colintraive residents.
The residents of Colintraive agreed more with the above statement than the residents of Glendaruel. These statistics indicate that it would be beneficial for community organisations in Glendaruel to ensure that local people are given the opportunity to participate and kept informed of any developments. b) Existing community groups in the local area make a difference to the quality of my life.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 14.7 65.0 14.7 5.6
Responses Q8b The majority of respondents agreed that existing 80 community groups in the 60 local area make a difference to the quality of their lives.
% 40
20 Further analysis showed that the residents of Colintraive 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree agreed more with this Strongly Strongly statement than the residents of Glendaruel.
Perhaps community groups in Glendarue l could advertise their successes and recruit new members, as this would enable local people to understand what it is that they are trying to achieve. c) The development of Colintraive and Glendaruel must involve local people.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 64.1 35.3 - 0.6
Responses Q8c There was overwhelming agreement that the 70 development of Colintraive and 60 Glendaruel must include local 50 40 people. Less than one percent 30 20 of people disagreed with this 10 statement. 0 Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly
d) The development of Colintraive and Glendaruel must be managed by local people.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 55.8 37.0 7.1 -
Responses Q8d The majority of respondents
agreed to the statement that 60 local people must manage the 50 development of Colintraive and 40 30 Glendaruel. Only 7% of people 20 disagreed. 10 0 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly
e) Development plans in Colintraive and Glendaruel must be based on good community support.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 58.3 40.4 1.3 -
Responses Q8e Again, the majority of respondents agreed that 70 60 development plans in the area 50 must be based on good 40 30 community support. Only 1% of 20 people disagreed with this view. 10 0 Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly
f) What, in your opinion, should the role of the local community be?
Responses to this question varied but generally centred on the importance of community involvement in local development. Many respondents stressed the need for more people to become involved and emphasised that the local community should be responsible for ensuring that future development benefits the whole community.
‘The development trust must be absolutely accountable to the local community.’
‘More people need to become involved. Fresh blood is needed.’
‘To make sure any development would benefit as wide a range of the community as possible.’
However, it was felt that external agencies are still needed in an advisory capacity.
It is important that local people/organisations play a part in future development but it is also important that professional guidance be available.
Lastly, there was a suggestion that there was not sufficient representation from the Glendaruel area on the present Community Council, and that this should be addressed.
‘At present, the development of Glendaruel is managed mostly by people in Colintraive - I would like to see more Glendaruel people on the Community Council.’ g) Successful development must be based on ‘partnerships’ between government agencies.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 33.6 55.3 7.9 3.3
Responses Q8g The vast majority of respondents agreed that 60 successful development must 50 40 be based on ‘partnerships’
% 30 between government agencies. 20 10 Only 8% disagreed and 3% 0 strongly disagreed to this Agree Agree Disagree Disagree statement. Strongly Strongly
h) Local people can only play an active part in community development if government and external agencies provide support.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 24.3 52.7 18.9 4.1
Responses Q8h The majority of respondents agreed that local people 60 could only play an active part 50 40 in community development if
% 30 government and external 20 10 agencies provided support. 0 However, 19% of Agree Agree Disagree Disagree respondents disagreed and Strongly Strongly 4% strongly disagreed with this statement.
i) Local people can only play an active part in community development if government and external agencies allow them more powers over decision-making.
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Strongly % 37.2 54.1 7.4 1.4
Responses Q8i The majority of respondents agreed that local people 60 could only play an active part 50 in community development if 40
% 30 government and external 20 agencies allowed them more 10 0 powers in the decision- Agree Agree Disagree Disagree making process. Strongly Strongly
j) Respondents were asked to outline their opinions on the role of government and external agencies.
Most comments in this section considered that government and external agencies should provide financial support and advice but leave planning and decision making to the community.
‘Their role should be advisory.’
‘External and government agencies should be restricted to advice and financial support.’
‘It should be left to the local community to decide what, if any, developments come.’
People also thought that government and external agencies could help by identifying best practice when managing development in rural communities around the world.
‘Assessing information and best practice in similar rural communities.’
Section 9 The Present and the Future a) What are the advantages of living in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
Advantage % Agreement The peace and tranquility 100 The countryside 95.6 The sense of safety 94.3 The quality of life 89.2 The air quality 84.8 Community life 75.9 Other 17.1
Responses 9a All respondents reported that the peace and 120 tranquillity was an t
n 100
e advantage to living in
m 80
e Colintraive and Glendaruel.
e 60 r
g 40 Most of the respondents a 20 also thought that the % 0 r r y y i e e e
y countryside, community t t y t e i i c s t i a d l l
i h n a n e e t a a s e f f u d e i e
u life, quality of life and the e e y u l h O a n f s p r
m i q h q
f t l T s
a T
e e m o n e f sense of safety were h h o u h o T T o C T c included in the advantages of living in the area.
‘Other’ advantages reported by people were the coastline and the wildlife. b) What are the disadvantages of living in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
Disadvantage % Agreement Distance to access 71.8 services Distance to access 44.9 leisure activities Too quiet 0.6 Lack of community 5.1 spirit Other 14.7
Less than one percent of Responses 9b respondents felt that the
t 80 quietness was a
n e 60 disadvantage, and only 5% m e
e 40 reported that a lack of r g
a 20 community spirit was a
% 0 disadvantage. However, t r
o e t e i s
s
h many people reported that u e e t s q c c
i e O n o v c the distance to access a r o t c
e s T a i s services and leisure D activities were certainly a
disadvantage
Included in ‘other’ disadvantages were access to emergency provision, travel costs and the state of the roads. c) What do you feel are the most important issues for the future of Colintraive and Glendaruel?
Responses to this question were extremely varied. The most frequent comments were concerned with the need for more affordable housing to enable young people to stay in the community, better access to emergency service provision and to ensure that local businesses remain open.
‘In an ageing community, more thought has to be given to swift access to emergency health care.’
‘That our younger generation is able to live and work here, that families stay and keep our local (Glendaruel) primary school open.’
Other responses included:
Better electricity supply during winter months Better broadband provision Cheaper ferry charges Building sustainable tourism Attracting permanent residents to the area Better maintenance of roads Providing more facilities for the young d) What changes would you like to see happen in the community (longer term)?
Many responses to this question were similar to the previous question.
Respondents wished changes to the emergency services provision, the need to keep young people in the community, more permanent residents and the need for more affordable housing.
Respondents also wanted better provision for the elderly, more employment opportunities and better access to leisure facilities.
‘More capacity for a social life.’
‘Care for the elderly.’
‘A more varied range of indoor and outdoor activities.’
Other comments included:
A new and larger hall (Colintraive) Youth clubs A good local hotel and tea room More societies and group to use the hall A local post office and general store Development for walking in the hills and wildlife observation facilities
There were also a number (although a substantial minority) of respondents who stated that they did not want to see any changes to the community. e) What aspects of life in the community would you like to preserve (long term)?
There was significant consensus in the responses to this question. A large number of respondents stated that they would like to preserve the ‘community spirit’ and similarly a great number of respondents wished to preserve the ‘peace and tranquility’ that the area offered.
Other aspects of life in Colintraive and Glendaruel that respondents wished to preserve including:
The way of life The heritage The friendliness The sense of belonging The sense of safety The wildlife
Section 10 Additional Comments
Respondents were asked if they wished to make any further comments about Colintraive and Glendaruel. A diverse range of opinions was expressed, including:
The need to look to successful rural communities around the world and learn from them.
A need for pavements in the area.
Caution that development focuses too heavily on tourism as this creates very few employment opportunities.
Caution that improved commercial activity does not necessarily equate to improvements in the quality of life for local residents.
Better broadband connections that could facilitate working from home.
The lack of public consultation was a concern and there should have been an open public meeting prior to the Colintraive and Glendaruel Council Development Trust Steering Committee being formed.
Positive comments were made (only one negative comment) about the commissioning of the questionnaire and it’s usefulness to the community.
SECTION 2 – QUALITATIVE DATA FROM FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS/INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS AND LITERATURE
Primary School Children Responses
Permission to carry out the focus groups was requested from the school, parents and the children themselves for this part of the research. CADISPA believes that young people should be included in any local research – they, after all, are the future adults of the village. For the youngest members of the community (those of the infant classes) who may not be able to write, opinions can be expressed through drawing or through writing with the help from a researcher. We used images as prompts for the younger children and only asked the first two questions as listed below.
The following were the key thoughts captured from the day:-
1. What do you like about living in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
The environment featured strongly in this question with answers including:-
o The scenery o The views o The peace and quiet o Lots of space o The privacy
The young participants enjoyed many of the activities they took part in free time:-
o Shinty o Their pets o Playing outside o Going for walks
The people/community were also favourite aspects, with friends and family emerging strongly as the best things about life in the community.
2. What do you not like about living in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
A number of issues were raised in response to this question. The fact that it was rainy and cold was an issue that obviously could not be resolved by a Development Trust, that they felt there was “nothing for them to do” when weather was bad. The primary school children felt strongly that there were few organised activities for them to participate in, especially during bad weather.
They felt that they had to travel considerable distances to access activities that they wished to do:-
“it takes ages to go to a place that has a lot of things to do”
“you have to wake up really early. I have to wake up at 6.45”
They also expressed, surprisingly, concerns that the roads were busy and the cars on the road were too fast which restricted where they could play.
3. What things would make your life here better?
Children in the area felt that their lives would be improved if there were:-
o Parks/designed play areas in the area o More activities to participate in o More equipment i.e. items to play with o Less pollution o A bike path o More sport pitches
4. Over the next few years what do you think will change in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
In the near future, the children of the community expect to:-
o Have more to do o See more houses in the community
5. What parts of the Colintraive and Glendaruel do you want to keep the same in the future?
The children did not want the following to change:-
o The peacefulness of the community o The playground o The schools o The countryside o Their homes (“I don’t want houses right next door to me”) o Their friends o The sea o The sky o The countryside
Many of their homes have large gardens with space around them. This was valued by the young people, as was the countryside around them. Any development that would impinge negatively on the more natural aspects of their life would be unacceptable to the young people.
6. What changes in the future do you NOT want to see happen?
Changes that they did not want to see happen included:-
o More litter o Their friends moving away o More cars o Changes to the school o The sky
The school was considered a favourite place, with young people valuing its traditions and keen for it not to change.
Secondary Pupils’ Comments
Permission to carry out the focus groups was requested from the parents, the school and the teenagers themselves for this part of the research. We feel that it is vital to understand the thinking of the young people and to understand their lives in the community, how it could be improved, what it is that they value and what they wish to do in the future. The pupils were all very keen participants and held many well informed opinions.
We spoke to thirteen young people of secondary school age.
1. What do you like about living in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
The pupils reported that they particularly enjoyed the more rural aspects of life in the community including the peace and quiet of the area, the sense of freedom and felt they would not experience this living in the city. Other aspects of rural life that they liked included:-
o The views o The scenery o The fresh air o The sea o The garden/grass by hotel o The forest o The safety of the area - “You can go outside without fear of someone taking you away”
Many of the respondents felt belonging to a close community and knowing each other was a positive thing. This created a sense of neighbourliness and of safety.
The respondents listed a number of activities that they engage in during their free time including kayaking, mountain biking and fishing – and they felt very fortunate to be able to participate in these activities. They also particularly enjoyed using the shinty pitch in Glendaruel.
2. What do you not like about living in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
A number of the points raised in this section conflicted with the responses in the section above. For example, the subject of community was raised. In the section above the close nature of the communities was perceived positively but in this section, there was much stronger sentiment that the familiarity was a negative aspect of life. Young people also felt that there were not sufficient people in the community as a whole, especially amongst the younger generation – they highlighted that they felt it was a community with a large proportion of older people. For some, there was a feeling that there were not enough like-minded people, “…no people your age that like the same stuff.”
The young people described a number of activities that they participate in, but in this section they raised the issue of their difficulty in taking part in other activities or access to shops that are found in Dunoon or larger cities. Residents in Colintraive and Glendaruel have to make considerable journeys in order to access retail facilities, and a number of young people considered that the journeys were boring. A number commented that the community was also a “boring” place to live. The young people also mentioned the poor fire and ambulance services and were concerned by the number of power cuts over the last few winters.
As is common in most of our studies, the young people felt that they were given a ‘hard time’ by some of the older residents and that they were blamed and falsely accused of bad behaviour. ”Old people shout at you if you are trying to have fun.”
Surprisingly perhaps, a number of criminal incidents were mentioned that caused concern to the young people including bike thefts. A number of them felt that tourists were intrusive, especially with regard to their property. The lack of street lighting in some parts of the community also made some of the young people feel afraid at night time.
The poor quality of mobile reception, the roads, and the lack of public transport that actually meets the needs of locals, were also amongst the more common responses.
3. What would make your life better in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
There were a number of suggestions made by the young people on the topic of what would make their life better in the community. The main issue was that of an improved transport system:-
o Young people wished to have buses that connected them with places they wanted to go and at times convenient to them.
o They would like ferry costs to be more affordable, as this would make trips to the mainland more accessible for them.
o The lack of coverage for mobile phones emerged as a particular issue.
o Improved local sporting facilities was considered important, with a number of people requesting a shinty pitch in Colintraive and football facilties. Other suggestions included football, tennis, bike paths, a more local swimming pool, and a play park in Colintraive.
o The issue regarding the lack of retail opportunities was considered important. Young people felt that their lives would be made more convenient by having more accessible shops.
o The need for more social activities including a youth club was also a pertinent issue. It was felt that young people were excluded from any development plans – the youngest people in the community had the opportunity of using the local play park, and there seemed to be a number of activities for adults, but young people felt that there were very few organised activities that they could take part in. “It was fine to be here when I was younger but now it’s boring.”
o A number of young people stated that they would prefer to stay in the school hostel in Dunoon rather than make the long journey home every day. The hostel was perceived very positively by many of the young people and it was felt that boarding during the week, returning home at the weekends would allow them to have better quality lives.
4. What changes do you expect to see over the next ten years?
Responses to the question of what changes the young people actually expect to see over the next year years were varied, with a number of contradicting opinions being expressed.
Young people expected there would be better outdoor facilties in place over the next ten years and they strongly believed that the proposed play park would be built.
They expected there to be a doctor in the area but simultaneously they felt there would be a stronger need for emergency services, perhaps because of the increasing elderly population.
A number of young people felt that there would be less of a community, and therefore, less of a community spirit.
They expected to see many new houses built, with some expecting that there would be a housing scheme. They felt that house prices would continue to rise.
A number of young people felt that there would be more transport on the road.
Some young people predicted that the population would increase whilst others expected it to decrease.
5. Do you plan to stay in the area?
Most of the young people could not imagine themselves staying in the area after finishing school, and they hoped to go to university, college, work, travelling or, more generally, to “go somewhere with facilities and things.” They felt that there was a lack of opportunities in general, and more specifically, a lack of job opportunities in the area. A number of respondents intimated that there was a lack of things to do in the area and that the community was boring. Some participants also wanted to join other family members who lived elsewhere.
However a large number thought they might like to return after finishing their education or gaining skills.
6. What parts of the area do you want to keep the same?
In response to the question, which parts of the community do the young people want to keep the same, the following suggestions were made:-
o The pub at Colintraive o The shinty pitch o There should be fewer holiday homes o There is a need for more housing, but also, there is no need for new housing, with a fairly equal division in opinions o Keep the nice views o Protect the scenery o Keep it clean o Preserve the environment
These responses mirror the answers in question one, which asked what young people like most about living in the area. There was a strong desire to preserve these aspects of the area.
7. Changes you don’t want to happen?
In response to the question, what changes do you not want to see happen, young people made the following suggestions:-
o A decline in farming o Houses being built o Flats being built o A community garden o The pub to close o The shinty pitch to close
Business Interviews
We believe that we spoke to the majority of businesses in Colintraive and Glendaruel. The diversity of businesses is really quite astonishing and includes a number of cottage industries, operating on a national and international level. Less usual businesses include the Scottish School of Hypnotherapists, a Latin American Travel specialist, a publisher and a very successful organic soap company. It seems fair to conclude that there are a number of successful entrepreneurs in the community who may have found a niche market, and are very resourceful. Diversification of more traditional industries was also apparent with farmers branching into less traditional sectors in order to survive economically. There were also a large number of people who were employed in the tourist sector and this, in some cases, is more of a fragile economy. There were a number of respondents to the survey who had to take on multiple jobs in order to survive economically and in response to the short season of tourism, leading a piecemeal existence.
Priorities
The key priorities for development of businesses in the community included, new housing, suitably skilled staff, new training opportunities and improved internet connection. The list (with the priorities at the top and the others in no particular order) is as follows:-
1. Affordable housing for local young people/staff 2. More suitably trained local staff 3. The need for the provision of I.T. training to increase existing skills within businesses – perhaps in-house training 4. Improved internet connection – a community satellite may improve this situation
Others included:-
A new hall for Glendaruel – to include usage by the church Developing parking in Glendaruel A new doctor’s surgery Develop tourism with a heritage ‘hub’ in Glendaruel providing information on ‘what to do’ in the area Develop tourism opportunities associated with the river, whilst protecting it Develop a business association/links between the existing businesses and share resources/skills Workshop space to operate from Suitable storage space An improved transport system More facilities for staff/visitors to use Increased provision of moorings, more accessibility Additional accommodation for tourists
Current Needs
In addition to the priorities listed above, the participants also identified specific issues that they faced as businesses. These included:-
1. The elderly population affected businesses. It was felt that the community was less active in recreational and social activities due to the elderly population.
2. “Last week there was a shoot. Only thirty people attended, one hundred years ago, at least one hundred would have turned out. Older people are less active… Young people might like to live here but they can’t afford it. “
3. It was noted that there had been a recent change in the trend with a number of young professionals arriving in the area, but generally, the population was ageing. One participant noted that if this demographic trend continues, the community will “die out.”
4. The lack of child care was an issue. The mobile childcare unit in Helensburgh was referred to as a possible model to replicate to overcome the childcare issue short-term.
5. The unreliable electricity supply was considered unacceptable to local businesses. A number of participants in the study (wider study) noted that the frequency of power cuts during storms/bad weather had negatively affected their ability to operate.
6. The difficulty of engaging local people was considered an issue. It was felt that some new arrivals to the area had chosen to live in the area to lead a quiet life and not to take part in the community. Conversely, some of the participants mentioned that they would like to be given the opportunity to become more involved in community affairs. Perhaps the Development Trust could organise personal invitations to be sent to business leaders to encourage an uptake of new membership.
7. The issue of the windfarm only arose in conversation once or twice during the interviews with the businesses, but it does seem to reflect some of the locals’ opinions (from other parts of the study). A number of locals are opposed to the windfarm development and feel that they were not consulted and there concerns were not addressed. This has made them distrustful of development in general.
8. The telephone exchange being out-of-date has a negative impact on businesses. It seems that this basic infrastructural provision was in urgent need of modernisation.
Links with the Community
A number of businesses had a two way relationship with the community and depended on them for trade, local staff and also sponsored community events, donated raffle prizes and gladly accepted advice/ recipes etc. Equally a number of the businesses were entirely self- sufficient and did not have any connection with the local population, other than sharing the same geographical base they operated out of.
Positive responses included:- o “ The community donates to us regularly” o “We have outright support from the community “ o “We are very frequently praised for the standard of our work.” o “It is a good community and our regular visitors are part of the community” o “The community helps us to develop our business” o “The community has been very supportive of my new business. A number of people have even offered to work in a voluntary capacity.”
The local post office is run by the local pub in an effort to keep the post office and small local shop open. Businesses seem to recognise the importance of contributing to community life in such a small rural setting.
Perhaps less positively, some of the comments included:- o “The local community can be a rumour mill …”
Role of the Development Trust
Generally, local businesses were keen to work more closely with a Development Trust. The majority of businesses made a number of suggestions of how a Trust might be able to help them in the future. Some, however, were unclear of what a Trust’s remit is and how they could be helped. Suggestions included:- o The Trust could provide overall focus and structure for funding – training, access to the AIE, new medical services, improving tourism (including marketing of the area). o “We suffer from a council that has no interest in tourism. However, things are beginning to happen through the DT.” o The Trust could develop walking paths and cycle paths. It was felt that tourists wish to walk/cycle safely. o The Trust should develop a community sheltered outdoor area similar to Tallyessan - the community woodland in Dumfries and Galloway. o “The Trust could put aside some land for us, for example units/ containers. I’m sure other artisans would support this motion.” o The Trust could encourage Argyll College to offer more localised adult education opportunities geared to businesses. o The Trust could apply pressure on the local bus company to provide a more responsive bus service that may actually meet the needs of local people.
Future Needs
The various businesses that we spoke with set out their future needs. A number of them required new staff, new premises, new customers and they hoped that the Development Trust could help them with these issues. Others felt that they wished to consolidate what they had and did not feel they were in need of radical change to their enterprises. Suggestions included:- o Glendaruel visitor attractions should be better marketed o A larger purpose built doctor’s surgery o A tourism ‘hub’ in Glendaruel o New customers o Explore the ‘green tourist route’ o Meeting the training needs of local staff o Business sustainability through collaboration o More staff o New premises o New storage space o “we want to open up our work/employability to those with extra needs” o Develop marketing o Housing development in specific areas
Acceptable Changes
There were a number of suggestions made of what constituted acceptable development, including:-
New car parking provision A new hall in Glendaruel A population increase Affordable housing /more housing in general - this needs to be in the “right place” and sympathetic to the landscape Anything that would help employment for the younger population, for example the windfarm Improved infrastructure An integrated transport policy for locals and to allow tourists without cars easier access to the community Sustainable energy options More businesses
It seemed that local people recognised that there was a great need for affordable housing but were keen for the wider issue of needs to be addressed. People need suitable employment and a community needs adequate facilities to accommodate a population increase, however it was considered that any housing development needed to be connected to wider community development.
Unacceptable Changes
A number of developments were considered unacceptable to local businesses:
“There has been a problem with turnover of ownership at the hotel. It would be a big loss to the local community if it was sold as a private house.”
“I don’t want affordable housing. It doesn’t solve the problem. It brings in people who only come because the house is cheap. They don’t contribute to the local culture.”
“ It’s all very well to build houses but you have to build a community. You need to know who your neighbours are.”
“(It would be unacceptable to me if...) … the scenery was ruined, for example a polluting fish farm – anything that takes away the natural beauty of the area.”
People were forced to move away – especially young people – as they were priced out of the housing market.
“We came here for the peace and tranquility and facilities for the ‘remote glen,’ therefore we are keen for this to be kept the same.”
Like the younger participants in this study, the business cohort was keen to prevent any development in the field at the front of the hotel.
Has Colintraive and Glendaruel the skills required to lead any developments?
Generally, the responses to this question were positive. Businesses did feel that Colintraive and Glendaruel was home to a diverse range of skills, but they were concerned about whether people had the energy and commitment to lead large scale development projects.
Comments included:-
“I think it has (the skills). It is a very good, diverse community. (They) could do with a facilitator to bring it all together.”
“They do, but it’s always the same people involved.”
”…but it needs enough support, co-operation and people pulling together. There are enough people in the area to get things going, but are there enough people in the area to make things work?”
“There are a lot of skills in the community and expertise in the glen, for example we have secured funding for a new play park so there is a track record of successful community development, however this has to be done with checks in place. Sometimes it seems like there are people with an axe to grind leading developments.”
Further comments
Other relevant comments included:-
The importance of the internet to businesses in the area cannot be understated.
The area is not amongst the most popular tourist destinations in Scotland despite its natural beauty and interesting heritage features. There is much potential for growth, but the infrastructure needs to be improved to accommodate, transport and generally improve the quality of the tourist experience.
There is something of a lack of cohesion between Colintraive and Glendaruel.
THE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
CADISPA carried out this study within its remit of seeking to ‘help communities help themselves’. CADISPA encourages an ‘inside-out,’ non- prescriptive approach to development that is sustainable.
Issues in the Community
The findings from the questionnaire and the focus groups were interpreted in light of the seven components of sustainable communities, set out in the Egan Review (2004). These components were described in further detail in the sustainable development section of this report and summarised as:
1. Social and cultural: vibrant, harmonious and inclusive communities
2. Governance: effective and inclusive participation and leadership
3. Transport and connectivity: good transport services and communication linking people to jobs, schools, health and other services
4. Services: a full range of appropriate, accessible, public, private, community and voluntary services
5. Environmental: providing places for people to live in an environmentally-friendly way
6. Economy: a flourishing and diverse local economy
7. Housing and the built environment: a quality and natural environment
NB: As tourism plays such a vital role in the area’s economy and people’s livelihoods, we gave tourism its own heading.
Social and Cultural
Cultural and heritage issues were of great importance to the people of Colintraive and Glendaruel. Both built and natural heritage featured prominently in the survey with the natural beauty of the area being recognised as important both for tourists and locals. Local people felt the need for this heritage to be better promoted and marketed. They felt that historical sites of interest should become more of a tourist attraction. It was hoped that this would simultaneously inspire pride in local people. There are a number of important heritage sites in the Argyll area and other locations, which have high quality marketing materials, talks, lectures, signage, interpretation boards and ‘hubs’/heritage centres to promote these sites. Perhaps a Development Trust or other existing community groups might like to explore these ideas. A ‘walking trail’ that could lead tourists and locals through the communities and sites of interest on signed paths was just one suggestion from the responses. Promotion of the area would receive great support from local people.
Local people felt there was a healthy community atmosphere but because the villages were home to an elderly population, people were less active in taking part in community events. It was also felt that the community was less cohesive than was possible, as they are separated geographically. The two villages seem to operate quite separately despite some attempts at drawing them together.
The respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the social facilities available to them at present, indicating a need for future development initiatives. There was some difference between the two communities - the respondents in Colintraive felt a strong need for a larger space for social events but this was not the case in Glendaruel. Neither village felt there was a desperate need for new halls but rather, that the existing facilties should be better utilised and more organised activities offered, especially for the younger and older generations – e.g. those who cannot immediately access a car and visit another area. If possible, a Development Trust or hall committee should explore the options of extending the Colintraive hall. In general, sporting activities, leisure time activities like arts and crafts, bridge, activities for families and educational opportunities, were all suggested as a means of improving this. Better provision for those with special needs should also be considered. It was felt that the needs of tourists could be included by having part of one of the halls dedicated to displaying the heritage of the area.
The response of neither community wishing a new hall surprised us, as we did not feel that the halls seemed as modern, multi-functional or efficient in comparison to some other rural halls familiar to us. In the Colintraive hall, the toilets seem old and the heating inefficient. However, CADISPA can understand that people have a strong emotional attachment to their local hall and would perhaps prefer to conserve the halls rather than rebuild them.
The suggestion of improving the pier in Colintraive by offering new activities received fairly strong support. Establishing new moorings was less of a priority but, more generally, local people and the local businesses, wished to see more opportunities for sailing and attracting sailing boats, for bird-watching and improved car parking in the area. Many people however, felt strongly about over development of this area as a tourist attraction, and wished to ensure that the beauty was not compromised. They did not wish the area to become over commercialized, in particular, a significant rise in traffic. This very much corresponds with the other priorities that emerged from this survey - preserving the rurality of the area, preventing any sudden developments and balancing improvement of the tourism experience with the needs of local people.
Governance
Evidence would suggest that both Colintraive and Glendaruel are active communities despite a few local people reporting otherwise. There are a number of community organisations with a good record of activity, for example a community group based in Glendaruel secured funds for the building of a new play park through success in the People’s Millions, a televised competition as voted for by the wider UK population. There were many remarks commending the various groups, including the commissioning of this study. The community websites - http://www.skwebpages.com/colglen/homepage.shtml and http://www.colintraivecorner.co.uk/ are also good examples of an active community. They are informative with interesting personal anecdotes. The community newsletter, hand delivered to all households, is an excellent channel for the flow of information.
There was a difference between Colintraive and Glendaruel in how participatory the community considers the decision making process to be, and there were a number of people in Glendaruel who felt excluded from community-level politics.
Many of the respondents remarked that they felt the community and local businesses, had not been well supported historically by local authorities. Specifically, they had concerns about basic infrastructural issues like the condition of the roads, the lack of pavements and the lack of consultation, etc.
Throughout the community, there was a strong sense that any development should be led in a bottom-up fashion, and managed by local people with advisory input from the Council or other external professionals. However, respondents were aware of some of the difficulties involved in community-led projects, including maintaining a sizeable volunteer pool and the energy required to realise and sustain large projects. It was hoped that younger people could become more involved to ensure representation. It was also strongly felt that the community needed to be consulted on any developments before ideas were implemented – ninety-nine percent of respondents to the study stated that development plans in Colintraive and Glendaruel must be based on good community support.
Local people felt that they have been left off the political agenda and have taken steps to overcome this - this can be seen in physical projects, i.e. the new play park and the commissioning of this study.
Transport and Connectivity
Almost every adult respondent to the questionnaire owned at least one car with over half of respondents owning more than one. A car is essential to the lives of those living in such a remote location. However, for those without a car, or too young or old to drive, it is imperative that public transport is affordable, regular and available. The fact that the community is ageing and living longer will drive a growing need for public transport. More generally, a well serviced transport system would enable dependence on the car to be reduced. Local residents felt that they required a much improved service to enable them to access social/leisure pursuits, and some would like to be able to use public transport to access work, rather than having to make lengthy and expensive car journeys daily. This is especially evident among the younger population who are too young to drive yet independent enough to travel alone, with a strong desire to access free time pursuits. The same wish was intimated by elderly residents.
It was felt that buses would be significantly improved if they had a timetable that met the needs of local residents and a route that included more people. Cost was not the main concern, although the expense of the ferry was highlighted as a disincentive in taking this form of transport. Residents suggested that the ferry could be subsidised to allow them easier, quicker access to the facilities of Glasgow and Greenock.
Although young people were keen for improved public transport, they highlighted the distances they had to travel to take part in activities and found the journey, in general, long and tedious, to the point that a number of young people indicated that they would prefer to board in the hostel in Dunoon than make the daily journey to school.
Local people were seriously concerned at the state of the local roads and highlighted the damage to their cars and potential dangers. This was not considered to be acceptable and people felt that the Council should take steps to address this issue.
Broadband infrastructure is accessible in the village but not as efficient as it should be, and local people hoped that this would be a priority for improvement. The inefficiency of broadband was a crucial issue for businesses and for encouraging businesses to start-up in the area. Another infrastructural concern was the telephone connection that during inclement weather can become intermittent. Out-of-date infrastructure clearly and impinges negatively on the lives of people in the villages.
At present, it is only possible to walk between the two villages on the roads. There are limited foot paths and cycling lanes and because of bends in the road, pedestrian/cyclist travel is not as safe as it could be. This should be improved to provide connectivity between the two villages and to improve the tourist experience.
Local parking facilities should also be improved for the convenience of local people and tourists.
Services
According to the Egan Review (2004), a sustainable community should have a full range of appropriate, accessible public, private, community and voluntary services. We tested for this in the survey and found there were many gaps in provision for this community.
With regard to schooling, the local primary school was viewed positively in the community and people were delighted that the school roll had increased over the last few years, reversing previous trends. Even the children viewed their school positively! Teenagers had to travel large distances, on winding roads to access secondary education – this was their main concern. On the whole, the young people viewed their secondary experience positively. However, there are currently no other educational opportunities in the village and choices are limited. People either travel daily, board, or leave the area, as most teenagers do when completing their school education. This was felt to be unacceptable and that adult education, both informal and work–based, could and should be provided in the community.
With regard to the provision of quality local health care, there were a number of gaps in services. The surgery and the efforts by the local health staff were viewed positively, but the majority of people had concerns - the ambulance provision was limited and the availability of a dentist and other specialised health professionals. This issue, in general, was compounded by the elderly population who tend to use the NHS more, adding stress to an already overstretched service.
The retail opportunities available to local people are basic and the local shop/post office has limited opening hours. Local shopping has to be supplemented by travelling to nearby larger villages, or by driving to a supermarket - a considerably longer distance. However, local people very strongly supported the local shop and post office and were very keen to see it remain open. It was felt that visitors also supported local shops.
Service provision for children under five was not considered adequate and many people stressed a need for a childcare service and a nursery or pre- school facility.
Environmental
Colintraive and Glendaruel are set in magnificent surroundings. Respondents appreciated the outdoors and the freedom rural life affords and they were very keen to preserve this environment. This natural beauty is also a major economic resource to the area.
On a micro level, people were extremely concerned about the amount of litter in the area and requested a more regular refuse collection. Trends indicate refuse collection will be further reduced in the future, so, consideration should be given to support the community to improve recycling. In general, people particularly valued the forest, the beaches, the loch and the pristine condition of these aspects of the environment and this is often the reason why people move to, and stay in the area. Any development that could have a negative affect on these aspects would not have the support of local people. It was hoped that other renewable options could be explored including woodchip burners, photovoltaics and more energy efficiency in the community in general.
Economy
Tourism is a vital component of the economy of the area yet is poorly capitalised. On the whole, the area is not comparatively well visited, despite its natural beauty and interesting heritage features. There is much potential for growth, but the infrastructure needs to be improved to accommodate, transport and generally improve the quality of the tourist experience. There also needs to be a marketing drive to inform visitors of the area. Key to the area’s regeneration will be managing tourism for the wider benefits of the community rather than the limited economic benefits of individuals.
Many of the local businesses do not need staff as they are sole traders or employees, and many only need temporary low skilled staff. Where there is a need for staff, in some cases there is a gap between what employers need and skills that exist in the community. With the opportunity of work-based learning, and the possibility of apprenticeships, perhaps small steps could be taken to overcome this issue. It was hoped that any development would create new jobs for local people and that in general, more skilled and well paid jobs will result.
Local businesses made a number of suggestions as to how a Development Trust could support them, including:-
Overall focus and structure for funding
Business sustainability through collaboration
New car parking provision
Sustainable energy options
The need for the provision to increase skills in existing businesses – in-house training
More suitably trained local staff
Child care provision
Support in diversification of local businesses.
There seemed to be little mutual support between the local businesses and there was a general lack of understanding of what businesses/people in the village do. We interviewed a wide mix of innovative, niche businesses, many of which local people seemed unaware of, as they operate from home using the internet to trade. Perhaps a business association and links between the existing businesses to share resources/skills would enable growth. In other communities, business associations have proven to be mutually supportive, especially in rural communities where access to business support is remote.
Between the businesses and community, there seemed to be some mutual support with businesses donating to local events, offering space to community groups and equally, members of the community keen to support local businesses by purchasing goods locally and by offering to volunteer/ ideas to local enterprises.
It was unclear to most local people whether local businesses did well financially or not. Local people perceived local businesses as faring well, yet some of respondents from the business community felt that their economies were fragile and survival was difficult. Local people seemed to support their local shops, and were very keen to keep them.
A number of people stated that they hoped that any new developments did not compete with existing businesses.
Tourism
The importance of tourism to the local economy was highlighted clearly, with a number of the population being involved in the tourism industry (as determined by the interviews we conducted with the businesses in the area). The results also indicated that respondents felt that Colintraive and Glendaruel could, and seemed very willing to, encourage more visitors, but were keen to do so without negative effects. However, there was an indication that certain forms of tourism were to be discouraged, such as the proliferation of holiday and second homes, as it was felt that these visitors do not contribute greatly to the local economy. There was a perceived link between second home ownership and the lack of affordable housing (and associated social difficulties). This was considered a major issue.
There was a belief that the provision of facilities, such as sporting venues, community halls etc, could benefit both local people and visitors. Colintraive and Glendaruel are small places, and in order to be financially viable, community-driven projects will undoubtedly rely on visitor income as well as local use. The provision of a good standard of facilities has the potential to extend the tourist season through the provision of year-round facilities. Respondents also indicated that there are several ways in which services for the tourist market could be improved. There was a need to ensure a good quality visitor experience in terms of accommodation, signage and the provision of information. This may indicate a potential educational project for the Trust, which aims to encourage local tourism providers improve and develop their products and link their businesses with wider community development activities.
Housing and Built Environment
Both villages have a mixture of housing with large detached villas and small terraced bungalows, new builds and original buildings dating back to the 1850s. This local distinctiveness creates a positive feeling for local people and tourists alike. Residents who responded to the survey enjoyed living in the area, including children and young people. People were aware that they live in an area where many people would like to move to, but there is limited housing available. This demand to live in the area outstrips availability of housing, pushing house prices higher. The area also attracts wealthier incomers who seek the peace and tranquility of the area and can afford to pay market housing prices. As is common throughout rural Scotland, this means that young families who are lower on the property market ladder are not able to move into the area. This has led to the growth of an elderly population. There is also a high percentage of second homes in the area, compounding the housing shortage.
On a positive note, one committee member pointed out that most of the houses in Colintraive were built as second homes, and many of them now have permanent residents, and that many permanent residents started as holiday visitors. This may indicate that current repeat visitors may follow the trend and settle in the area.
Support for new housing developments is therefore great, but locals wished to see a number of factors in place before any development takes place:- o Restricted holiday home purchasing o Affordable housing for locals o Smaller adapted housing for the elderly - unsupported o A sheltered housing complex o Suitably sized accommodation for young families o Upgrading of existing buildings o Housing that is in keeping with the characteristics of existing houses
The provision of social or affordable housing could be led by a Development Trust, or/and, could be in partnership with a housing association, housing developers, local landlords, the local council, private financiers, or any combination of these. There are a number of options available to the community. Talking to local planners and local housing associations (as discussed in our policy review section) would be a first step.
Residents, including the very young, wished very much to preserve the green areas within the community, with the field in front of the Colintraive Hotel emerging as a favourite spot.
There was also a need identified for suitable commercial accommodation units, in order to encourage enterprise and to allow storage and accommodation for existing businesses.
Advantages
Peace and tranquility emerged as the main factors that people enjoy about the area. The sense of safety that residents felt and that the younger residents benefit from, was a second key issue. The beauty of the countryside was considered to be one of the key components for those who move to the area along with the quality of life that rural living affords.
Disadvantages
These include:-
Distances to services Distance to access leisure activities The inadequacy of emergency provision The poor state of the roads
Priorities
We asked local people what they felt the priorities for development in the area were. There were many suggestions made but there was much consensus on the following issues:-
The need for more housing including affordable housing, housing for the elderly and housing for young people.
Creating opportunities for younger people to stay and work in the area.
Improving emergency provision.
Supporting local businesses in a variety of ways, and in particular, through some form of business association.
More organised activities locally for young people and the elderly, including educational activities.
An improved transport system.
Improved marketing of the area to attract new visitors/tourists.
An improved tourism experience in the areas (more information and joined up walking/biking trails. There is also support for a dedicated space for local heritage information.
The need to preserve the rurality of the area and, more generally, to protect the local environment.
The desire for any development to be community led.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We would suggest that the community consider the following:-
General Issues
There is a need to stimulate sustainable economic development, job and wealth creation through a local, community-owned development plan.
Community consultation should not be viewed as a single event but rather as an ongoing process. The wider community should be consulted on the design and management, and, potentially, the running of any projects.
There should be a drive to engage young adults in the development process. Appropriate mechanisms to enable this should be put in place, for example online surveys, youth forums etc.
Social inclusion and social enterprise should be built into any project developed by the group. There is a need to create employment and new training opportunities, to ensure that disabled needs are met, the need for provision of childcare facilities and active consideration should be given to the reasons why local people do not participate. All development projects should use social inclusion criteria.
Consideration must be given to the needs of future residents and generations. All future development must be sustainable and should guide planning for the immediate future.
Of importance to local people, is the need for the preservation and protection of both the natural and built environment. These should feature prominently in any local development agenda. Both are of substantial economic importance to the village.
Specific Recommendations
After an extensive analysis of the data gathered from the questionnaires, focus groups, interviews and from observations that we have made, we would suggest the following specific issues be considered:-
The natural and built heritage of the area needs to be better promoted in order to draw more interest from both tourists and locals. This could be done through identifying and marketing key assets. As an example, one CADISPA group created a marketing sub-committee when they faced a similar issue, and set up a number of meetings with Visit Scotland and their Tourist Information Centre. Another group hosts a number of regular lectures throughout the year using local historians - this has proven popular, a good fundraiser, and an excellent way of disseminating information. A central area for tourist information would improve the tourist experience.
A walking trail (or set of walking trails) could be beneficial for drawing tourists to the area and for local use - similar to that of the Cowal Way. In the Argyll area there are over 3,000 miles of paths currently being accessed by people. The Council held a consultation earlier this year (2007) which is presently being analysed. Consultees wished to see, in addition to new paths, upgrading of paths, vegetation clearance etc. Residents of Colintraive and Glendaruel will be invited to take part in the next stage of the consultation process that will take place later this year or early next year. For further information contact Douglas Grierson, Argyll and Bute Council (Sept 07).
There was substantial support for a heritage centre and this should be further explored.
Both Colintraive and Glendaruel village halls require some upgrading - there is local support for an extension to the Colintraive hall. A community centre, particularly in a rural location, can play a vital role in bringing the community together.
There are some groups in the community who feel that there is a need for more organised activities locally. This applies particularly to servicing the needs of the elderly, young people and families. This should include sports and leisure time activities, a day drop-in for the elderly and a youth group in the evenings for the young people.
Argyll and Bute Council, perhaps in partnership with other funders, should be asked to provide a youth and community worker for the villages. A Millenium Youth Worker Alison McCrossan, currently provides a service to the area and she can be contacted through the Dunoon office for advice.
As there seems to be a divide between the two villages, some planned cross-community events would be a simple initial step to bringing the two communities together. Any Development Trust or community group would need to make sure that both communities are equally represented on the development agenda.
Any community group, existing or new, must ensure that meetings are open to all members of the public to promote cohesion and to ensure transparency. This can be done by advertising Minutes, broadcasting meetings giving sufficient notice etc.
A meeting should be set up with local transport providers to understand local transport systems, and to discuss and agree on how the bus service could be run more effectively.
The possibility of setting up a community transport group could be considered. This has worked effectively in a number of rural communities. The Interloch Community Transport Scheme is a local transport group and could be contacted to discuss the transport needs of Colintraive and Glendaruel. Perhaps there would be the potential to expand Interloch’s existing service to include the villages.
The Argyll and Bute Council should be asked to report on a number of the issues, perhaps through the Community Council. These include – a cycle path, increased footpaths and improving the roads to access the villages. A timetable on action to address all of these important issues should be requested.
It is inconceivable nowadays that a community does not have access to a reliable Broadband internet service. Much rural business development rests on an adequate infrastructure. Steps should be taken to ensure reliability of services - telephone and electricity infrastructure and internet provision. The previous elected administration wished to see full Broadband coverage for Scotland, yet there are still gaps in this provision.
The digital switchover (between 2007-2012) will hopefully help with many of the issues of poor TV coverage for all rural communities as many communities do not have good reception and have limited channels. Further information can be found at http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/index.html.
Argyll College should be approached to assess what adult education opportunities could be provided locally. There are a great deal of skills in the community and an informal skills’ audit would lead to a number of local experts being brought in to deliver training, e.g. IT skills.
In the longer-term there is a need for a new doctors’ surgery. This would require the support of the local people. The current lack of emergency provision was not viewed as acceptable, and discussions with the NHS on ambulance service should be seen as a priority.
Consideration could be given to the start up of a business association which could be done with the support of a Development Trust. This could provide a useful communal support group that could be involved in training other local businesses, marketing the area and employing staff.
The provision of suitable housing of different types should be a priority in any development plan. Where housing should be sited, what type of housing and how it could be financed, are all key questions that need to be addressed immediately. Conversations with local housing associations and potential developers should start as soon as possible. It may be possible for a village Development Trust to purchase land for social housing. Right-to-buy (see policy review section) could be considered as a possibility.
With support from Trusts and Foundations, the moorings could be turned into a community and tourist facility. However, this was not an immediate priority but one for longer-term consideration.
Strategy for Development Agenda
There is a need for a specific ‘development agenda’ or ‘action plan’ to take the community forward into the future. The findings outlined in this report, which has gathered, analysed and examined the concerns, needs and hopes of local people, should provide a basis for a development strategy for positive change. Importantly, a development strategy based on these findings can confidently be said to have the backing of the local community, and to focus community effort on the issues of need and disadvantage that have been identified. Local people can lead on development, seeking external advice and support where necessary, and able to resist unwanted or inappropriate proposals which are seen to work against the needs of local people.
This appraisal has identified a number of issues that are the concerns of people living in the Colintraive and Glendaruel community. The purpose of CADISPA in promoting this study was to clearly identify these issues for local people in order to prioritise what is needed and develop an action agenda accordingly. Underpinning this work is the recognition that much of what is identified here will, necessarily, have to be driven by local people. Inevitably, this will be a new role for local people to play, and they may come to this a little reluctantly and perhaps with a minimal understanding of how to engage with these issues in a way that will bring success and new life to the area.
CADISPA would be delighted to help with the journey ahead should local people feel that this would be acceptable.
Dr Geoff Fagan October 2007 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Affordable Housing Review http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Housing/Housing/AffordHouseReview/ afford-housing-review
Age Concern Scotland http://www.ageconcernscotland.org.uk/downloads.asp
Argyll and Bute Council (2007) Argyll – A Short History. [Accessed from http://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/content/leisure/localhistory/shorrthistory?a=0 on the 12/04/07].
Argyll and Bute Council, Access Officer – Douglas Grierson (01546 604228
Argyll and Bute Council, Dunoon Office, Youth and Community Worker, Alison McCrossan, 01389 700 100
Argyll and Bute Council, Research and Information Officer, Lochgilphead Offices, Argyll Online www.argyllonline.co.uk
Bartholomew, J (1887) Gazetteer of the British Isles, London, G. Philip Publishers
BBC news http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Big Lottery Fund http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/
Choosing our Future Scotland’s Sustainable Development Strategy (2005) Scottish Executive, St. Andrew’s House, Edinburgh, EH1 3DG.
The Colintraive and Glendaruel website www.skwebpages.com/colglen
Dietkow, A (2006), Poles Offered Warm Welcome, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/06/12080802
DTA Scotland (2007) - http://www.dtascot.org.uk/whatis.cfm
The Egan Review. (2004) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. RIBA Enterprises, 15 Bonhill St. London, EC2P 2EA.
European Union EU Common Agricultural Policy explained – http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/public/capexplained/cap_en.pdf
Fagan, G. et al (2005) ‘The Value of Forestry for People – a Review,’ CADISPA, University of Strathclyde Glasgow G13 1PP.
The Glasgow Herald http://www.theherald.co.uk/
Fyne Homes, New Business Director, Peter McDonald – 0845 607 7117
Highland and Islands Enterprise (2007), Strengthen Your Community. [Accessed from http://www.hie.co.uk/argyll/communities.html on 07/09/07]
Land Reform http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Rural/Land/17063/8276 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Rural/Land/17063/8281
Leader Plus (EU Rural Development Policy) http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/g24208.htm
Macwhirter, Iain (2007), The SNP didn’t just hit the ground running, they lapped the political field, The Sunday Herald, 24/06/07)
Mulgan G (2003). "Government, knowledge and the business of policy making", Facing the Future Conference, Canberra April 2003: engaging stakeholders and citizens in developing public policy. The collected papers from the National Institute for Governance and Australian Public Policy Research Network Conference, Canberra
Paterson, B (2004) Colintraive and Glendaruel, A Small Country, Birlinn, Edinburgh.
Rural Community Gateway http://www.ruralgateway.org.uk/
Rural Development Programme for Scotland 2007- 2013. The Strategic Plan http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/02/08132503/0
Rural Scotland Key Facts 2006. Natural Scotland. Scottish Executive. (Available through the Rural Gateways website or at Blackwell’s Bookshop, 53 South Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1YS.)
The Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/
Scottish Community Planning (2007). [Accessed from http://www.improvementservice.org.uk/community-planning on 07/09/07].
Scottish Enterprise http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/sedotcom_home/services-to-the- community/rural.htm
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Departments/ERAD
Scottish Environment Protection Agency http://www.sepa.org.uk/
Scottish Executive Rural Development http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Rural
The Scottish Government (2007), Keeping it simple in the countryside, Scottish Government News. [Accessed from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2007/06/19160255 on the 07/09/07].
Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics http://www.sns.gov.uk/browser/browseResults.asp
Scottish Parliament. Environment and Rural Development Committee http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/environment
Scottish Parliament, Sustainable Development http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/SustainableDevelopment
Shelter (2007), Social Housing [Accessed from http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/policy/policy-6370.cfm on the 18/09/07].
The Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/
Three Case Studies of the Role of the Post Office within Rural Communities in Scotland http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/07/12103744/0
UK Sustainable Development http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/uk- strategy/framework-for-sd.htm
United Nations, Human Settlements and Energy http://www.un.org/esa/progareas/sustdev.html
University of the Highlands and Islands www.uhi.ac.uk
A Vision of Britain http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/index.jsp
Wightman, Andy (2007) http://www.landreformact.com/
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press. APPENDIX 1 – OTHER STATISTICAL DATA
Section 2 b) Respondents were presented with a list of services/activities which are presently limited, or not available within the Colintraive and Glendaruel area. Respondents were asked to rate how important it is for them to have access to the activities within their community.
iv. Informal drop-in space.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 13.6 27.2 40.1 19.0
The majority of respondents felt 50 Response Q2b-iv that an informal drop in space 40
30 available within the community % 20 was not very important or not 10 important at all, suggesting that if 0 such a service existed, it would Very Important Not very Not important important important not be widely used by the Response at all majority of the residents.
v. Hair and beauty services.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 6.0 11.9 38.4 43.7
Response Q2b-v The response to this statement 50 indicates that the residents of 40 Glendaruel and Colintraive felt 30 % 20 that hair and beauty facilities 10 were not very important or not 0 at all important facility for the Very Important Not very Not important important important community. Response at all
Local people consider that the present services are adequate and meet the needs of the community or that they are happy to travel to access these services.
iv. Local Authority Service Points – (Outreach Argyll and Bute Council office designated to provide local residents with direct access to services).
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 21.9 28.8 30.8 18.5
The residents were divided in Response Q2b-vi 35 their responses to this 30 25 statement. Almost half of the 20 % 15 community stated that having 10 local authority service points 5 0 was very important or Very Important Not very Not important, whilst the other fifty important important important at Response all per cent indicated that these facilities were not very important or not important at all.
This suggests that although a number of residents would make use of direct access to council services and felt that this facility would benefit the community, others felt that enhanced access was not a priority. vii. Changing, washing and showering facilities (for indoor and outdoor activities).
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 18.3 34.0 24.8 22.9
Response Q2b-vii 40 Responses to the importance 35 of having changing, washing 30 25 and showering facilities were 20 % 15 very mixed, but a small 10 5 majority of residents felt that 0 these facilities are important. Very Important Not very Not important important important at Response all
viii. Permanent library.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 7.4 28.4 37.2 27.0
Over 60% of respondents felt Response Q2b-viii 40 35 that a permanent library was 30 25 not very important or not 20 % important at all. However, 15 10 around one third of 5 0 respondents felt this facility Very Important Not very Not important important important at was important and would be of Response all benefit to the community. xii. Crèche facilities/childcare.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 18.4 42.9 21.8 17.0
Response Q2b-ix 50 The majority of respondents, 40 (over 60%), considered that 30 % crèche facilities and childcare 20 important or very important, 10 0 indicating that improved Very Important Not very Not facilities would be of benefit to important important important at Response all the local community.
xiii. After school quiet study space.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 5.5 28.1 41.8 24.7
The majority of respondents felt 50 Response Q2b-x that it was not very important or 40 not important at all to have an 30 % after school quiet space, and 20 that this was not a priority for 10 0 development plans. This could Very Important Not very Not be due to the large number of important important important at Response all responses from the older members of the community who would not be likely to use this facility.
xiv. Conference facilities.
Very Important Not very Not important Important important at all % 3.4 12.8 43.2 40.5
50 Response Q2b-xi The vast majority of 40 respondents (over 80%), stated 30 that conference facilities were % 20 not important or not important 10 at all, to future development of 0 the area. Very Important Not very Not important important important at Response all
APPENDIX 2 - QUESTIONNAIRE
THE COLINTRAIVE & GLENDARUEL COMMUNITY SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE
This questionnaire has been designed with support from the Colintraive and Glendaruel Community Council Development Trust Steering Committee. The organisation is keen to assess local opinion on a number of specific issues, in addition to conducting a wider study to identify community needs. The group propose to form a Development Trust following the survey to take forward areas identified as priority by the research. CADISPA has been employed by the group to undertake the research, to ensure the study is carried out in a professional and independent manner. The study has been funded by Awards For All.
IT WOULD HELP US GREATLY IF EVERY PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD OVER SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE COULD COMPLETE THEIR QUESTIONNAIRE.
We would like to thank you in advance for agreeing to complete this questionnaire. Please remember that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions asked, we are simply interested in your personal opinions. Please also be assured that any information you do give will be treated as strictly confidential.
The results of this study will help your community to plan for the future and will truly reflect the opinions of everyone living there. The statistics gathered will be used in a number of ways, including future funding applications. It is our intention, to enable everyone in the community over the age of five years, to have their say about the future of the community.
Your thoughts and ideas are extremely important to the future of Colintraive and Glendaruel.
SECTION 1 - PERSONAL DETAILS a. Where do you live?
Colintraive Glendaruel Other
b. Gender?
Male Female c. Age?
16-25 years
26-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56-65 years 66-75 years 76+ years d. Marital Status
Single With Partner Married Divorced Widow/Widower e. Which of these categories applies to you?
Resident Second home owner Regular holiday maker / visitor Other, please specify
f. Employment status?
Employed, full-time Employed, part-time Self employed Unemployed Student Retired g. Your current annual income?
Under £10,000 per annum £10,001-£12,000 per annum £12,001-£16,000 per annum £16,001-£22,000 per annum £22,001-£26,000 per annum £26,001+ per annum
h. Please answer this section if you are a permanent resident of the Colintraive/Glendaruel areas. i. If employed, is your work place located outwith the areas of Colintraive and Glendaruel?
Yes No ii. If yes, where is your place of work?
iii. Have you always lived in Colintraive/Glendaruel?
Yes Yes, with breaks No iv. How long have you lived in Colintraive/Glendaruel?
Less than 1 year 1-10 years 11-20 years 21-30 tears 31 + years
SECTION 2 - SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
In planning for development, there are a number of social factors such as community groups, gatherings and social events that should be considered, as well as the basic services and facilities that everyone needs to enjoy a good quality of life. The questions below will assess how important you feel social considerations are and what part they should play in the future development of Colintraive and Glendaruel. a. Improving social opportunities for the community should be a priority when considering any developments.
Please indicate choice by ticking one box:
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
In the next section, please circle your preferred choices using the scale:-
1 - Very important 2 - Important 3 - Not very important 4 - Not important at all b. The following services/activities are presently limited or not available within the Colintraive and Glendaruel area. How important is it for you to have access to the following facilities within the community?
i. Larger space for social events 1 2 3 4 ii. Suitable space for tourist 1 2 3 4 attractions on the heritage of the area iii. Educational opportunities 1 2 3 4 iv. Informal drop in space 1 2 3 4 v. Hair & beauty services 1 2 3 4 vi. Local Authority Service Points - 1 2 3 4 outreach Argyll and Bute Council office designed to provide local residents with direct access to council services vii. Changing, washing & showering 1 2 3 4 facilities (for indoor and outdoor activities) viii. Permanent library 1 2 3 4 xii. Crèche facilities/ childcare 1 2 3 4 xiii. After school quiet study space 1 2 3 4 xiv. Conference facilities 1 2 3 4 xv. Sports 1 2 3 4 xvii. Activities for younger people 1 2 3 4 xviii Activities for older people 1 2 3 4 . xix. Support for those with special 1 2 3 4 needs xx. Family activities 1 2 3 4 xxi. Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4
c. The village hall in Colintraive/Glendaruel will be adequate for our needs over the next ten years (if you use facilities at both halls please indicate your choice in both tables).
i. Colintraive
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
ii. Glendaruel
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
d. Specifically relating to the community:-
i. Do you consider there to be a good sense of community?
Yes No
ii. Comments
iii. Do you feel safe in the community?
Yes No
iv. Comments
f. Please outline below any specific social issues that are of concern to you you would like to see tackled by any future development plan for the local community.
SECTION 3 - ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The Colintraive and Glendaruel Community Council Development Trust Steering Committee is keen to form a Development Trust to take forward improvements in the community. Economic development would be at the heart of any such development. There are economic factors such as employment opportunities, housing, the tourist industry and the role of private enterprise that must be considered whilst planning for development. The following questions try to assess how important you feel that these factors are and what role you think they should play in the development of Colintraive and Glendaruel. There is a space provided at the end of this section should you wish to comment on specific item/s.
a. Economic benefits to the community should be a priority when considering any development.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
b. Economic improvement depends on creating more skilled and well-paid jobs in Colintraive and Glendaruel.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
c. Local businesses do well financially in Colintraive and Glendaruel.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
d. Local businesses are supported in the area by ………
i. Locals (i.e. local people buying local goods/using local trades).
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
ii. Visitors.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
ii. The local authority i.e. financially and structurally.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
e. The local economy would be strengthened by widening the range of skills and businesses in the area.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
f. Encouraging tourism in Colintraive and Glendaruel is essential for economic improvement.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
g. There is a need for improved broadband provision in the community.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
h. New technology, such as broadband internet access, has an important part to play in encouraging economic improvement in Colintraive and Glendaruel.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
i. Comment:
Please outline below any specific economic issues that are of concern to you and you would like to see tackled by any future development plan.
SECTION 4 - THE ENVIRONMENT
In any plan for development, the protection or improvement of the environment also plays a role, alongside social, economic and cultural considerations. This section aims to explore how you feel about the natural environment of Colintraive and Glendaruel, and how you would like to see it protected and managed in the future, considering that the environment covers not only flora and fauna but air and water quality, recycling, transport and other such issues. a. The conservation of the environment should be a priority in considering all future development proposals.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
b. Environmental threats to the area are a concern for me.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
c. The protection of the environment is essential to encourage visitors and tourists to the area.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
d. Any development in the community must meet the needs of current and future generations with minimal negative environmental impact.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
e. Comment
Please outline below any specific local environmental issues that are of concern to you and you would like to see tackled by any future development plan for the local community.
SECTION 5 – TOURISM & CULTURAL HERITAGE
Colintraive and Glendaruels’ cultural heritage includes historic places, monuments, traditions, customs etc. These are motivating factors that draw tourists to the area. This section aims to investigate how important you feel the cultural aspects of life in Colintraive and Glendaruel are, and seeks your opinion on the quality of the tourism experience for visitors. a. Colintraive and Glendaruel’s cultural heritage should be a priority when considering future developments.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
b. The cultural heritage of Colintraive and Glendaruel is an economic asset to the area.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
c. The quality of the tourist experience in the area is good.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
d. Presently, there is limited provision for moorings and pontoons. Would you support these facilities being upgraded to a higher standard?
Yes No Not sure i. If you responded as not sure, or that you do not support the development, please indicate your reason below.
f. What additional activities, if any, would you like to see at the Colintraive shore? Please tick as many options as you feel appropriate.
i. Pleasure boating
ii. Sailing
iii. Water sports
iv. Swimming
v. Bird watching
vi. Picnics
vii. Car parking
viii. Other, please specify
g. The preservation of historical sites of interest in the area is important.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
h. There is space for more interpretation boards and signage.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
i. Walking in the area should be encouraged e.g. with way marking, sign posts etc.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
h. Comment
Please outline below, which particular elements of local culture and heritage are of importance to you, any comments you may have regarding tourism, and any specific items that you would like to see included in any future development plan for the area.
SECTION 6 - HOUSING
Affordable housing is accommodation that is financially accessible to people who live and work in the area. This can be provided by means of low-cost (grant assisted) private housing, rented or shared ownership housing. This section aims to establish your feelings about the local housing situation in Colintraive and Glendaruel. a. An adequate supply of affordable housing is essential for the needs of local people.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
b. There is already sufficient affordable housing available to those living in:-
(i) Colintraive
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
(ii) Glendaruel.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
c. The current provision of housing for older people is sufficient.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
d. There are not sufficient serviced plots available in the village for those wishing to build their own homes.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
e. Comment
Please outline below which particular elements of housing that is important to you, and what you would like included in any future development plan for the area.
SECTION 7 – TRANSPORT
Transport is an important issue, especially in rural areas. This section aims to assess car usage and whether public transport meets the needs of residents. a. Do you have access to a car?
Yes No
b. How many cars are there in your household?
b. Do you use public transport to travel locally?
Frequently Occasionally Never
d. Current provision of public transport in Colintraive and Glendaruel restricts my ability to work.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
e. Current provision of public transport in Colintraive and Glendaruel restricts my social life.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
f. Which aspect of public transport, if any, do you find restrictive? Please tick as many options as you feel appropriate.
i. Price
ii. Inconvenient timetable
iii. Route
ii. Other, please specify
SECTION 8 – GOVERNANCE
This section aims to establish your opinion on how well your community is run. It considers whether there is effective and inclusive participation, representation and leadership, and whether local people can become involved in the future development of their community? a. There is ample opportunity for me to take part in local community groups.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
b. Existing community groups in the local area make a difference to the quality of my life.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
b. The development of Colintraive and Glendaruel must involve local people.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
c. The development of Colintraive and Glendaruel must be led by local people.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
e. Development plans in Colintraive and Glendaruel must be based on good community support.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
f. Comment
There are a variety of roles that the community of Colintraive and Glendaruel can play in the future development of the area. The questions above try to establish what you think these should be. Please outline below, in a few sentences what, in your opinion, the role of the local community in future developments could be.
As well as local people, externals agencies such as Argyll and Bute Council, Argyll and Bute Enterprise, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Water, Scottish Natural Heritage etc may be involved in community development plans. This section aims to investigate your opinion on external involvement.
g. Successful development must be based on a ‘partnerships’ between government agencies and the local community.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
h. Local people can only play an active part in community development if government and external agencies provide support.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
i. Local people can only play an active part in community development if government and external agencies allow them more powers over decision-making.
Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly
j. Comment There are a variety of roles that government and external agencies can play in the development of Colintraive and Glendaruel. Please outline below, in a few sentences what, in your opinion, their role could be.
SECTION 9 - THE PRESENT & THE FUTURE
This section aims to identify the positive and negative aspects about life in Colintraive and Glendaruel, and to ask some general questions about your thoughts for the future of the area.
Present
Please tick as many options as you feel appropriate. a. What do you consider are the advantages of living in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
i. Peace and quiet
ii. The countryside
iii. Community life
iv. Quality of life
v. Air quality
vi. Safety
vii. Other, please specify
b. What do you consider are the disadvantages of living in Colintraive and Glendaruel?
i. Distance to access services
ii. Distance to access leisure activities
iii. Too quiet
v. Lack of community spirit
iv.Other, please specify
Future c. What do you feel are the most important issues for the future of Colintraive and Glendaruel?
d. What changes would you like to see happen in the community (longer- term)?
e. What aspects of life in the community would you like to preserve (longer-term)?
SECTION 10 - ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Please feel free to use this section to make further comments about Colintraive and Glendaruel, or about the survey.
It is vital that all the residents of Colintraive and Glendaruel are given the opportunity to participate in the study as future developments will be based on the outcomes. If any member of your household over sixteen has not received a questionnaire, we would be grateful if you would please contact, The CADISPA Project, University of Strathclyde, Department of Educational and Professional Studies, Division of Community Education, Crawfurd Building, 76 Southbrae Drive, Glasgow, G13 1PP. Tel 0141-950- 3601/3702 or email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
Dr Geoff Fagan Director CADISPA Project